In re Taisha R., 5118.
| Decision Date | 20 January 2005 |
| Docket Number | 5118A.,5118. |
| Citation | 2005 NY Slip Op 00317,14 A.D.3d 410,788 N.Y.S.2d 357 |
| Parties | In the Matter of TAISHA R. and Another, Children Alleged to be Neglected. NANCY J., Appellant; ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Respondent, et al., Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
The placement has been rendered moot by the expiration of the dispositional order from which respondent appeals (see Matter of Thalia L., 303 AD2d 162 [2003]). The finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence showing that respondent, who did not testify, regularly used marijuana while pregnant with the younger child and caring for both children, often to calm herself after an argument with the children's father. Moreover, respondent was not enrolled in a drug treatment program (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [iii]; Matter of Synovia G., 163 AD2d 257 [1990]; Matter of Krewsean S., 273 AD2d 393, 394 [2000]), and told the older child not to tell anyone about the father's repeated acts of domestic violence that were causing the child to experience fear and distress (see Matter of Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 371-372 [2004]; Matter of Danielle M., 151 AD2d 240, 242-243 [1989]).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Renk v. Renk
...142 A.D.3d 851, 852-53 (1st Dep't 2016); Polidori v. Societe Generale Groupe, 39 A.D.3d at 405-406; Mascola v. City Univ. of New York, 14 A.D.3d at 410. Most significantly, once again plaintiff does not connect either defendant's creation of her intolerable work environment to her membershi......
-
In re Sasha B.
...costs. The placement has been rendered moot as the date scheduled for the next permanency hearing has passed ( see Matter of Taisha R., 14 A.D.3d 410, 788 N.Y.S.2d 357 [2005] ). The finding that respondent neglected the child was supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Cou......
-
In re Myisha B.
...to the dispositional part of the order has been rendered moot by the expiration of the terms of the order ( see Matter of Taisha R., 14 A.D.3d 410, 788 N.Y.S.2d 357 [2005] ). The denial900 N.Y.S.2d 864of his motion for recusal is not appealable as of right ( see Family Court Act § 1112). Th......
-
In re M.
...as moot. The appeal from the disposition has been rendered moot by the expiration of the order appealed from ( see Matter of Taisha R., 14 A.D.3d 410, 788 N.Y.S.2d 357 [2005] ). The finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence showing, inter alia, that respondent left ......