Opinion
4091.
08-08-2017
In re DANIELLA A., and Another, Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner–Appellant, Jessica A., Respondent–Respondent.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Janet L. Zaleon of counsel), for Appellant. Freshfields Bruckhaus & Deringer US LLP, New York (Scott A. Eisman of counsel), for Respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Marcia Egger of counsel), attorney for the children.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Janet L. Zaleon of counsel), for Appellant.
Freshfields Bruckhaus & Deringer US LLP, New York (Scott A. Eisman of counsel), for Respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Marcia Egger of counsel), attorney for the children.
ACOSTA, P.J., RENWICK, MANZANET–DANIELS, MAZZARELLI, ANDRIAS, JJ.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Valerie Pels, J.), entered on or about July 1, 2015, which granted respondent mother's motion to modify an order of disposition entered on or about July 17, 2014, to the extent of entering in its stead a suspended judgment (the conditions of which were deemed satisfied), dismissing the neglect petition, vacating the finding of neglect, and releasing the subject children to the mother's care, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
For the reasons we explained in Matter of Leenasia C. (appeal No. 4092 [decided simultaneously herewith] ), we reject petitioner agency's argument that, pursuant to Family Court Act § 1061, the Family Court was not authorized to modify the dispositional order to the extent of granting a retroactive suspended judgment. We also find that the mother's strict compliance with the dispositional order, and her clear dedication to ameliorating the conditions that led to the neglect finding, constituted "good cause" warranting the relief requested (see Matter of Bernalysa K. [Richard S.], 118 A.D.3d 885, 885, 987 N.Y.S.2d 619 [2d Dept.2014] ; see also Matter of Alexander L. [Andrea L.], 109 A.D.3d 767, 767, 972 N.Y.S.2d 229 [1st Dept.2013], lv. dismissed 22 N.Y.3d 1056, 981 N.Y.S.2d 362, 4 N.E.3d 374 [2014] ; Matter of Araynah B., 34 Misc.3d 566, 582, 939 N.Y.S.2d 239 [Fam.Ct., Kings County 2011] ). Moreover, in vacating the neglect finding, the Family Court properly took into account the mother's ability to find work in her chosen field, as the mother's employability is in the best interests of the children (see Matter of Whitley v. Whitley, 33 A.D.3d 810, 810, 822 N.Y.S.2d 626 [2d Dept.2006], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 809, 834 N.Y.S.2d 90, 865 N.E.2d 1257 [2007] ).
Given the foregoing determination, we do not reach the parties' argument regarding whether dismissal of the neglect petition is appropriate under Family Court Act § 1051(c).
We have considered the agency's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.