Schenectady Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Markus TT. (In re Marcus TT.)

• Decision Date: 25 November 2020
• Docket Number: 527082,527085
• Citation: 132 N.Y.S.3d 889 (Mem),188 A.D.3d 1461
• Parties: In the MATTER OF MARCUS TT. and Others, Alleged to be Neglected Children. Schenectady County Department of Social Services, Respondent; v. Markus TT., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Marcus TT. and Others, Alleged to be Neglected Children. Schenectady County Department of Social Services, Respondent; v. Teressa UU., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

188 A.D.3d 1461
132 N.Y.S.3d 889 (Mem)

In the MATTER OF MARCUS TT. and Others, Alleged to be Neglected Children.

Schenectady County Department of Social Services, Respondent;
v.
Markus TT., Appellant.

(Proceeding No. 1.)

In the Matter of Marcus TT. and Others, Alleged to be Neglected Children.

Schenectady County Department of Social Services, Respondent;
v.
Teressa UU., Appellant.

(Proceeding No. 2.)

527082
527085

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

Decided and Entered: November 25, 2020

Karen R. Crandall, Schenectady, for Markus TT., appellant.

Alexandra G. Verrigni, Rexford, for Teressa UU., appellant.

Christopher Gardner, County Attorney, Schenectady (Samantha H. Miller of counsel), for respondent.

Veronica Reed, Schenectady, attorney for the children.

Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Clark, Devine and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Clark, J.

Appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Schenectady County (Blanchfield, J.), entered June 18, 2018, which, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, issued orders of protection.

Respondent Markus TT. (hereinafter the father) and respondent Teressa UU. (hereinafter the mother) are the parents of the subject children (born in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014 and 2015). In March 2018, petitioner filed separate neglect petitions against the father and the mother, alleging medical and educational neglect as to certain of the children and derivative neglect as to the others. Family Court subsequently issued temporary orders of protection – one against the mother and one against the father – requiring that the parents, among other things, allow petitioner to "see the children ... and the home at reasonable times and for reasonable durations." After accessing the parents' home, petitioner withdrew the neglect petitions. Family Court consequently vacated the temporary orders of protection and dismissed the neglect petitions with prejudice. The father and the mother each appeal from the temporary orders of protection against them, solely challenging the propriety of the condition that allowed petitioner entry into their home.

As the parties recognize, the appeals from the temporary orders of protection have been...