In the Matter of Kira J. (anonymous).Nassau County Dep't of Soc. Serv.

• Decision Date: 21 June 2011
• Citation: 925 N.Y.S.2d 854,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05499,85 A.D.3d 1030
• Parties: In the Matter of KIRA J. (Anonymous).Nassau County Department of Social Services, respondent;Lakisha J. (Anonymous), appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

85 A.D.3d 1030

925 N.Y.S.2d 854

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05499

In the Matter of KIRA J. (Anonymous).Nassau County Department of Social Services, respondent;Lakisha J. (Anonymous), appellant.

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

June 21, 2011.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREJoseph R. Faraguna, Sag Harbor, N.Y., for appellant.John Ciampoli, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Dennis J. Saffran of counsel; David Tauster on the brief), for respondent.John M. Zenir, Mineola, N.Y., attorney for the child.

In a neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper) of the Family Court, Nassau County (Dane, J.), dated May 18, 2010, which, after a hearing, inter alia, found that she neglected the subject child and imposed certain conditions in connection with her custody of the subject child, and (2) an order of protection of the same court also dated May 18, 2010, which, upon the order of fact-finding and disposition, and upon the mother's consent, directed her to stay away from the child, except for supervised visits approved by the petitioner. The notice of appeal from an order of the same court dated December 19, 2009, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the order of fact-finding and disposition dated May 18, 2010 ( see CPLR 5520[c] ).

ORDERED that the appeal from order of protection is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant is not aggrieved by the order of protection dated May 18, 2010, because she consented to the relief granted in that order. Therefore, the appeal from the order of protection must be dismissed ( see Matter of Child Welfare Admin. v. Jennifer A., 218 A.D.2d 694, 695, 630 N.Y.S.2d 379).

The finding of neglect, which was the subject of contest in the Family Court and, therefore, reviewable on appeal, is supported by the preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Ct. Act § 1046[b] ). The petitioner was not required to demonstrate actual harm to the subject child to establish neglect; rather, proof of an imminent danger of impairment of the child's physical, mental, or emotional condition was sufficient ( see Family Ct. Act § 1012[f]; Matter of Soma H., 306 A.D.2d 531, 761 N.Y.S.2d 684).

The Family Court credited the testimony of the consulting psychologist for the Nassau County Division of Forensic Services that the mother suffered from untreated mental illness. The Family Court's credibility determination was entitled to great weight ( see Matter of Madison H., 66 A.D.3d...