| Matter of Neveah AA. (Alia CC.) |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 00255 [124 AD3d 938] |
| January 8, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Neveah AA., a Child Alleged to beNeglected. Columbia County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Alia CC.,Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Neveah AA., a Child Alleged to beNeglected. Columbia County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Donald AA.,Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
Alexander W. Bloomstein, Hillsdale, for Alia CC., appellant.
Robert Linville, Public Defender, Hudson (Jessica D. Howser of counsel), forDonald AA., appellant.
Jessica Keenanler, Columbia County Department of Social Services, Hudson (N.Daniel Reeder of William J. Better, PC, Kinderhook, of counsel), for respondent.
Ira Halfond, Craryville, attorney for the child.
[*2] Lahtinen, J.P. Appeals from three orders of theFamily Court of Columbia County (Koweek, J.), entered December 21, 2012 and April12, 2013, which, among other things, granted petitioner's applications, in twoproceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to adjudicate Neveah AA. to be aneglected child.
Respondent Alia CC. (hereinafter the mother) and respondent Donald AA.(hereinafter the father) are the biological parents of Neveah AA. (born in 2012).Respondents each had children with other partners and those children had beenpreviously found to be neglected. At the time of the subject child's birth, respondentsconsented to her temporary placement with petitioner. Shortly thereafter, petitionercommenced these proceedings alleging derivative neglect of the child. Following aconsolidated hearing, Family Court rendered a detailed written decision and order inDecember 2012 finding that petitioner had established derivative neglect by eachrespondent. In April 2013, orders of fact-finding and disposition were entered.Respondents now appeal.
The attorney for the child argues that these appeals are moot because, during the timethe appeals were pending, respondents executed judicial surrenders of their parentalrights and the child has been adopted. However, "the finding of neglect creates apermanent and significant stigma that may adversely affect the mother [and the father] infuture proceedings" (Matter ofArmani KK. [Deborah KK.], 81 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2011], lv denied 16NY3d 711 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Bayley W. [JadenW.], 100 AD3d 1203, 1203-1204 [2012]). Accordingly, these appeals are notmoot.
"Derivative neglect is established where the evidence demonstrates an impairment ofparental judgment to the point that it creates a substantial risk of harm for any child leftin that parent's care, and the prior neglect determination is sufficiently proximate in timeto reasonably conclude that the problematic conditions continue to exist" (Matter of Tradale CC., 52AD3d 900, 901 [2008] [citation omitted]; see Matter of Xiomara D. [Madelyn D.], 96 AD3d 1239,1240 [2012]). The mother's prior severe neglect in 2008 involved, among other things,repeatedly refusing to seek necessary medical treatment for a child and banging that childagainst a wall. The father's neglect upon consent in 2009 arose from, among other things,domestic violence perpetrated upon his paramour in a child's presence and not properlyfeeding or caring for that child. Petitioner's extensive proof in the current proceedingsrevealed that the father dropped out of anger management programs twice, failed tocomplete batterer's accountability classes and had been diagnosed with intermittentexplosive disorder. The mother failed to complete services provided for her regarding herother children, including a parent mentoring program and an anger managementprogram, and she suffers from various mental illnesses for which mental healthcounseling had been recommended. Both the father and the mother missed withoutexcuse numerous scheduled visitations with the child and, when they happened to bothattend, they often argued to such an extent that the person monitoring visitation had tointervene.
Although there was conflicting proof, we accord deference to Family Court'scredibility determinations (seee.g. Matter of Jewle I., 44 AD3d 1105, 1107 [2007]). Accepting thosedeterminations, the record fully supports Family Court's findings that respondents failedto cure or adequately address, despite the availability of services, the earlier identifieddeficiencies in their parenting skills that created a substantial risk of harm to Neveah (see Matter of Ilonni I. [BenjaminK.], 119 AD3d 997, 998 [2014]; Matter of Viveca AA., 51 AD3d 1072, 1073 [2008]). Thesignificant deficiencies in parental skills that resulted in the previous findings of neglectwere "sufficiently proximate in time to reasonably conclude that the problematic [*3]conditions continue[d] to exist" (Matter of Sumaria D. [MadelynD.], 121 AD3d 1203, 1204 [2014] [internal quotation marks and citationomitted]). There is a sound and substantial basis in the record for Family Court's findingsof neglect.
The remaining issues have been considered and are without merit.
McCarthy, Egan Jr. and Devine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders are affirmed,without costs.