Opinion
2019–12698 2019–13099 Docket No. NA–25359–16
09-30-2020
In the MATTER OF KATELYN P. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent; v. Christian G. (Anonymous), respondent-appellant, et al., respondents.
Richard L. Herzfeld, New York, NY, for appellant. James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Daniel Matza–Brown and Anna W. Gottlieb of counsel), for respondent. Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Dawne A. Mitchell and Susan Clement of counsel), attorney for the child.
Richard L. Herzfeld, New York, NY, for appellant.
James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Daniel Matza–Brown and Anna W. Gottlieb of counsel), for respondent.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Dawne A. Mitchell and Susan Clement of counsel), attorney for the child.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, ROBERT J. MILLER, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Christian G. appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Kings County (Jacqueline B. Deane, J.), dated August 8, 2019, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court dated September 12, 2019. The order of fact-finding, after a fact-finding hearing, determined that Christian G. abused the subject child. The order of disposition, upon the order of fact-finding and after a dispositional hearing, placed Christian G. under the supervision of the petitioner for a period of 12 months and directed him to complete a sex offender treatment program.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order of fact-finding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order of disposition and is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it is further,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 Christian G. under the supervision of the petitioner for a period of 12 months is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant under the supervision of the petitioner for a period of 12 months must be dismissed as academic, since the period of supervision has expired by its own terms (see Matter of Ava A. [Steven A.], 179 A.D.3d 666, 667, 116 N.Y.S.3d 328 ; Matter of Aliyah T. [Jaivon T.], 174 A.D.3d 722, 723, 107 N.Y.S.3d 38 ). However, since an adjudication of abuse constitutes a permanent and significant stigma which might indirectly affect the appellant's status in future proceedings, the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as brings up for review the findings of abuse set forth in the order of fact-finding is not academic (see Matter of Naphtali A. [Winifred A.], 165 A.D.3d 781, 783, 85 N.Y.S.3d 512 ; Matter of Baby Boy D. [Adanna C.], 144 A.D.3d 1026, 1027, 43 N.Y.S.3d 367 ).
We agree with the Family Court's determination that the appellant was a person legally responsible for the care of the subject child and, as such, was a proper party to the subject child protective proceeding. The evidence at the fact-finding hearing showed that the appellant resided with the child for nine months and undertook various obligations with respect to the child, including transporting her to and from school, watching her when the mother was at work, buying lunch for her, and helping her with her homework (see Family Ct Act § 1012[g] ; Matter of Yolanda D., 88 N.Y.2d 790, 797, 651 N.Y.S.2d 1, 673 N.E.2d 1228 ; Matter of Mackenzie P.G. [Tiffany P.], 148 A.D.3d 1015, 1017, 48 N.Y.S.3d 778 ; Matter of Keniya G. [Avery P.], 144 A.D.3d 532, 532–533, 41 N.Y.S.3d 500 ; Matter of Jayline R. [Jose M.], 110 A.D.3d 419, 973 N.Y.S.2d 21 ; Matter of Matthew O. [Kenneth O.], 103 A.D.3d 67, 956 N.Y.S.2d 31 ; Matter of Nathaniel TT., 265 A.D.2d 611, 696 N.Y.S.2d 274 ).
Additionally, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the appellant to complete a sex offender treatment program (see Matter of Lea C. [Akil F.], 160 A.D.3d 724, 726–727, 74 N.Y.S.3d 590 ; Matter of Caitlyn U., 48 A.D.3d 934, 935, 851 N.Y.S.2d 705 ).
The appellant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., LEVENTHAL, MILLER and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.