Admin. for Children's Servs. v. Curtis G. (In re Boobacar R.)

• Decision Date: 18 November 2020
• Docket Number: 2019–10254,Docket Nos. N–6968–18, N–6969–18,2019–10252
• Citation: 132 N.Y.S.3d 687 (Mem),188 A.D.3d 1073
• Parties: In the MATTER OF BOOBACAR R. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent; v. Curtis G. (Anonymous), respondent-appellant.(Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Malia G. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent; v. Curtis G. (Anonymous), respondent-appellant. (Proceeding No. 2)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

188 A.D.3d 1073

132 N.Y.S.3d 687 (Mem)

In the MATTER OF BOOBACAR R. (Anonymous).

Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent;

v.Curtis G. (Anonymous), respondent-appellant.(Proceeding No. 1)

In the Matter of Malia G. (Anonymous).

Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent;

v.Curtis G. (Anonymous), respondent-appellant. (Proceeding No. 2)

2019–10252

2019–10254

Docket Nos. N–6968–18, N–6969–18

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—October 9, 2020

November 18, 2020

Christine Theodore, Spring Valley, NY, for respondent-appellant.

James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Daniel Matza–Brown and Jesse A. Townsend of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.

Janet E. Sabel, New York, NY (Dawne A. Mitchell and John A. Newbery of counsel), attorney for the children.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Curtis G. appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Kings County (Erik S. Pitchal, J.), dated May 1, 2019, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court dated May 31, 2019. The order of fact-finding, after a fact-finding hearing, found that Curtis G. neglected the subject children. The order of disposition, after a dispositional hearing, inter alia, released the subject children to the custody of the nonrespondent mother under the supervision of the Administration for Children's Services for a period of six months and placed Curtis G. under the supervision of the Administration for Children's Services for a period of 12 months.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order of fact-finding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order of disposition and is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it is further,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 released the subject children to the custody of the nonrespondent mother under the supervision of the Administration for Children's Services for a period of six months and placed Curtis G. under the supervision of the Administration for Children's Services for a period of 12 months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

In March 2018, the Administration for Children's Services (hereinafter ACS) commenced these related child neglect proceedings against the respondent, alleging that he neglected the subject children, then ages 13 years old and 6 months old, by committing acts of domestic violence against their mother in their presence. Following a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found that the respondent neglected the children. After a dispositional hearing, the court issued an order of disposition dated May 31, 2019, which, inter alia, released the children to the custody of the nonrespondent mother under supervision by ACS for a period of six months and placed the respondent under ACS supervision for a period of 12 months. The respondent appeals.

The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as released the children to the custody of the nonrespondent mother under the supervision of ACS for a period of six months and placed the respondent under the supervision of ACS for a period of 12 months has been rendered academic, as it has expired by its own terms (see Matter of Kailey Z. [Nancy Z.], 185 A.D.3d 832, 833, 126 N.Y.S.3d 740 ; Matter of Ava A. [Steven A.], 179 A.D.3d 666, 667, 116 N.Y.S.3d 328 ). However, the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as brings up for review the finding that the respondent neglected the children is not academic, since the adjudication of neglect constitutes a permanent stigma which might indirectly affect the respondent's status in future proceedings (see Matter of Cerise M. [Michael M.], 177 A.D.3d 743, 745, 112 N.Y.S.3d 759 ).

"A finding of neglect is proper where a preponderance of the evidence...