| Matter of Chanel T. (Guillaume T.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02083 [104 AD3d 953] |
| March 27, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Chanel T. Administration for Children'sServices, Respondent; Guillaume T., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.)In the Matter of Evelyn T. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent;Guillaume T., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter ofBrandon T. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Guillaume T.,Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Guillaume T., Jr.Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Guillaume T., Appellant, et al.,Respondent. (Proceeding No. 4.) |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo andElizabeth I. Freedman of counsel; Moon J. Choi on the brief), for petitioner-respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Susan Clement of counsel),attorney for the children.
In related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the[*2]father appeals from (1) an order of protection of theFamily Court, Kings County (Turbow, J.), dated February 17, 2012, which, inter alia,directed him to stay away from Chanel T., Evelyn T., Guillaume T., Jr., and Brandon T.,except for supervised visitation, until and including February 16, 2013, and (2) twoorders of disposition (one as to Chanel T. and Evelyn T., and one as to Guillaume T., Jr.)of the same court, both dated February 21, 2012, which, upon a fact-finding order of thesame court (McElrath, J.), dated September 29, 2011, made after a hearing, finding thathe neglected Chanel T. and Evelyn T., and derivatively neglected Guillaume T., Jr.,released Chanel T., Evelyn T., and Guillaume T., Jr., to the custody of the Commissionerof Social Services of Kings County under certain terms and conditions. The appeals fromthe orders of disposition bring up for review the fact-finding order dated September 29,2011.
Ordered that the appeal from the order of protection is dismissed as academic,without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the orders of disposition are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court's determination that heneglected Chanel T. and Evelyn T. by virtue of his drug use is supported by apreponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [iii]; [b] [i];Matter of Edward J. Mc.[Edward J. Mc.], 92 AD3d 887 [2012]; Matter of Brian W., 66 AD3d 791 [2009]; Matter of Arthur S. [Rose S.],68 AD3d 1123 [2009]). Moreover, the conduct which formed the basis for thefinding of neglect as to Chanel T. and Evelyn T. was sufficiently proximate in time to thebirth of Guillaume T., Jr., to support a finding of derivative neglect as to that child (see Matter of Jamarra S. [JessicaS.], 85 AD3d 803, 804 [2011]).
The order of protection expired by its own terms on February 16, 2013, and thedetermination of the appeal from that order of protection would, under the facts of thiscase, have no direct effect upon the parties (see Matter of Max F. [Emma F.-G.], 97 AD3d 816, 817[2012]; Matter of Brittany C.[Linda C.], 67 AD3d 788 [2009]). Accordingly, the appeal from the order ofprotection must be dismissed. Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ.,concur.