| Matter of Monica C.M. (Arnold A.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 04808 [107 AD3d 996] |
| June 26, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Monica C.M., an Infant. Administration forChildren's Services, Respondent; Arnold A., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (ProceedingNo. 1.) In the Matter of Brandon J., an Infant. Administration for Children's Services,Respondent; Arnold A., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matterof Joshua A., an Infant. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Arnold A.,Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.) |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Leonard Koerner andDeborah A. Brenner of counsel), for petitioner-respondent. Edward E. Caesar, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney for the child Monica C.M. Lewis S. Calderon, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the child Brandon J. Cheryl Charles-Duval, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney for the child Joshua A.
In three related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10,Arnold A. appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of two orders of disposition(one as to the child Monica C.M., and one as to the children Brandon J. and Joshua A.)of the Family Court, Queens County (Richter, J.), both dated June 24, 2011, as, upon afact-finding order of the same court dated February 23, 2011, made after a hearing,finding that he sexually abused and neglected the child Monica C.M. and derivativelyneglected the children Brandon J. and Joshua A., placed the child Monica C.M. in thecustody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York until thecompletion of the next permanency hearing, released the children Brandon J. and JoshuaA. to the custody of the mother, and placed him under the supervision of theCommissioner of [*2]Children's Services of the City ofNew York until June 24, 2012. The appeals from the orders of disposition bring up forreview the fact-finding order.
Ordered that the appeals from so much of the orders of disposition as placed ArnoldA. under the supervision of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of NewYork until June 24, 2012, are dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition regarding the child Monica C.M. is affirmedinsofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition regarding the children Brandon J. and Joshua A.is modified, on the facts, by deleting the provision thereof finding that Arnold A.derivatively neglected the child Joshua A.; as so modified, that order of disposition isaffirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements, and the fact-finding orderis modified accordingly.
The appeal from so much of the orders of disposition as placed Arnold A. under thesupervision of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York until June24, 2012, must be dismissed as academic, as the period of supervision has expired (see Matter of Kyanna T. [WinstonR.], 99 AD3d 1011, 1013 [2012]; Matter of Lisbeth H. [Noemy H.], 83 AD3d 836, 837[2011]; Matter of Jordan E.,57 AD3d 539 [2008]). The adjudications of abuse, neglect, and derivative neglect,however, constitute a permanent and significant stigma which might indirectly affect theappellant's status in future proceedings. Therefore, the appeals from the portions of theorders of disposition which bring up for review the findings of abuse, neglect, andderivative neglect in the fact-finding order are not academic (see Matter of Kyanna T.[Winston R.], 99 AD3d at 1013; Matter of Crystal S. [Elaine S.], 74 AD3d 823, 824-825[2010]).
The Family Court's determination that the petitioner proved by a preponderance ofthe evidence that Arnold A. sexually abused his stepdaughter, Monica C.M., whichlargely turned on its assessment of the witnesses' credibility, is supported by the recordand, thus, will not be disturbed (see Matter of Justin J., 25 AD3d 1031, 1033 [2006]).
As to the Family Court's finding of derivative neglect, a finding of sexual abuse ofone child does not, by itself, establish that other children in the household have beenderivatively abused or neglected (see Matter of Kyanna T. [Winston R.], 99AD3d at 1013). The focus of the inquiry to determine whether derivative neglect ispresent is whether the evidence of abuse or neglect of one child indicates a fundamentaldefect in the parent's understanding of the duties of parenthood (see Matter of Jelani B., 54AD3d 1032, 1033 [2008]). Here, a derivative finding of neglect as to the childBrandon J. was warranted since the abuse was perpetrated while he was in the home(see Matter of Kyanna T. [Winston R.], 99 AD3d at 1013; Matter of Ian H., 42 AD3d701, 704 [2007]; Matter of Melissa L., 276 AD2d 856, 857 [2000]).However, given the limited duration and nature of the sexual abuse, as well as theremoteness in time between when Monica C.M. was abused and when Joshua A., theappellant's biological son, was born more than four years later, there was insufficientevidence to support the Family Court's determination that Arnold A. derivativelyneglected Joshua A. (see Matter of Christina P., 275 AD2d 783, 784 [2000]).Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.