Admin. for Children's Servs. v. Jalise P. (In re Annalise L.)
| Decision Date | 13 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | 2018–02694,Docket No. N–2725–17,2018–02695 |
| Citation | 170 A.D.3d 835,96 N.Y.S.3d 133 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF ANNALISE L. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; v. Jalise P. (Anonymous), Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
170 A.D.3d 835
96 N.Y.S.3d 133
In the MATTER OF ANNALISE L. (Anonymous).
Administration for Children's Services, Respondent;
v.
Jalise P. (Anonymous), Appellant.
2018–02694
2018–02695
Docket No. N–2725–17
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Submitted—January 31, 2019
March 13, 2019
Law Office of Nicole C. Barnum, P.C., New York, NY, for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Jane L. Gordon and Lorenzo DiSilvio of counsel), for respondent.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Dawne A. Mitchell and Riti P. Singh of counsel), attorney for the child.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JEFFREY A. COHEN, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Queens County (Diane Costanzo, J.), dated January 3, 2018, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court dated January 23, 2018. The order of fact-finding, upon the granting of the petitioner's motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the mother derivatively neglected the subject child, found that the mother derivatively neglected the child. The order of disposition, upon the order of fact-finding and after a dispositional hearing, inter alia, placed the child in the custody of the Administration for Children's Services until June 19, 2018.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order of fact-finding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order of disposition and is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the child in the custody of the Administration for Children's Services until June 19, 2018, is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as the period of placement has expired; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
In this child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner alleged that the mother derivatively
neglected the subject child, who was born in February 2017, based upon prior findings that the mother neglected the child's four older siblings. The petitioner further alleged that the mother failed to sufficiently engage in services to ameliorate the risk that the mother's conduct posed to the children; that one of the older siblings was still in foster care due to the mother's failure to complete services; and that the mother's whereabouts between May 2016, and November 21, 2016, were unknown, and the mother did not visit the older sibling in foster care during that time. In an order dated January 2, 2018, the Family Court granted the petitioner's motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the mother derivatively neglected the child. In an order of fact-finding dated January 3, 2018, the court found that the mother derivatively neglected the child. In an order of disposition dated January 23, 2018, the court, inter alia, placed the child with the Administration for Children's Services until June 19, 2018. The mother appeals.
The focus of the inquiry to determine whether a parent derivatively neglected a child (see Family Ct Act § 1046[a][1] ) " ‘is whether the evidence of abuse or neglect of one child indicates a fundamental defect in the parent's understanding of the duties of parenthood. Such flawed notions of parental responsibility are generally reliable indicators that a parent who has abused [or neglected] one child will place his or her other children at substantial risk of harm’ " ( Matter of Jahmya J. [Crystal L.J.], 137 A.D.3d 1132, 1133, 28 N.Y.S.3d 105, quoting Matter of William N. [Kimberly H.], 118 A.D.3d 703, 706, 987 N.Y.S.2d 406 ; see Matter of Jeremiah I.W. [Roger H.W.], 115 A.D.3d 967, 969, 982 N.Y.S.2d 516 ).
"Where the nature of the neglect, notably its duration and the circumstances surrounding its commission, evidence[s] fundamental flaws in the respondent's understanding of the duties of parenthood ... the derivative finding may be justified if the prior finding was so proximate in time to the derivative proceeding, that it can reasonably be concluded that the condition still exists" ( Matter of Amber C., 38 A.D.3d 538,...
To continue reading
Request your trial