| Matter of Louis N. (Dawn O.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06386 [98 AD3d 918] |
| September 27, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Louis N., a Child Alleged to be Abused and/orNeglected. Dawn O., Appellant; Administration for Children's Services,Respondent. |
—[*1] Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Amy Hausknecht of counsel),Attorney for the Child.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or aboutJune 28, 2011, which, after a fact-finding determination that respondent mother had abused andneglected the subject child, awarded custody of the child to the grandmother, and order, samecourt and Judge, also entered on or about June 28, 2011, which granted the grandmother'spetition for custody of the child, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order ofprotection, same court and Judge, entered on or about June 28, 2011, which, among other things,directed that the mother stay away from the child, except for visitation approved by thegrandmother, until June 28, 2012, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.
The mother failed to preserve her arguments that Family Court issued an unauthorizeddisposition (see generally Matter ofToshea C.J., 62 AD3d 587 [1st Dept 2009]). Were we to review them, we would findthat Family Court appropriately held a consolidated dispositional hearing to resolve the custodyand abuse/neglect petitions (see Family Ct Act § 1055-b [a]). We would furtherfind that compliance with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) was notrequired because the award of custody to the out-of-state grandmother was made under article 6of the Family Court Act (see Family Ct Act § 1055-b [a]), to which the ICPC doesnot apply (see Merril Sobie, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY,Book 29A, Family Ct Act § 651 at 123 [2009 ed]).
A preponderance of the evidence at the consolidated dispositional hearing showed thatextraordinary circumstances existed supporting an award of custody to a nonparent and that itwas in the best interests of the child to award custody to the grandmother (see Family CtAct § 1055-b [a]). The child, who is learning disabled and educationally delayed, is now10 years old, and for 2� years he has been living in the loving and stable home of hisgrandparents, who meet all of his needs and who have addressed the health and emotionalproblems from which he [*2]suffered at the time of his arrival. Bycontrast, the mother, who was absent from court proceedings for over a year, has notdemonstrated any remorse or insight into her parental shortcomings.
Because the order of protection has expired, the appeal from the order is moot (see Matter of Brandon M. [Luis M.],94 AD3d 520, 520 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Diallo v Diallo, 68 AD3d 411 [1st Dept 2009], lvdismissed 14 NY3d 854 [2010]). Were we to reach the merits, we would find that FamilyCourt providently exercised its discretion in issuing the order, given the evidence of abuse andneglect (see Family Ct Act § 1056 [1]).
We have considered the mother's remaining contentions, including her argument that thegrandmother did not have standing to file a custody petition, and we find them unavailing.Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Catterson and DeGrasse, JJ.