Opinion
2011-10-25
In the Matter of AMBER GOLD J. (Anonymous).Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent;Vanessa J. (Anonymous), et al., appellants.
Linda C. Braunsberg, Staten Island, N.Y., for appellant Vanessa J.Catherine S. Bridge, Staten Island, N.Y., for appellant Marvin J.Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Sharyn Rootenberg of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara Steckler and Susan Clement of counsel), attorney for the child.
Linda C. Braunsberg, Staten Island, N.Y., for appellant Vanessa J.Catherine S. Bridge, Staten Island, N.Y., for appellant Marvin J.Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Sharyn Rootenberg of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara Steckler and Susan Clement of counsel), attorney for the child.
In a child neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Queens County (Richroath, J.), dated March 5, 2010, as, after a fact-finding hearing, found that she neglected the subject child, and the father separately appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the same order of fact-finding as found that he neglected the subject child.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Although the subject child was returned to the care and custody of the parents while the appeal was pending, since the adjudication of neglect “ ‘constitutes a permanent and significant stigma that might indirectly affect the appellant's status in future proceedings,’ ” the parents' respective appeals from the order of fact-finding are not academic ( Matter of Ndeye D. [ Benjamin D.], 85 A.D.3d 1026, 1027, 926 N.Y.S.2d 119, quoting Matter of Daqwuan G., 29 A.D.3d 694, 695, 814 N.Y.S.2d 723; see Matter of Alanie H., 83 A.D.3d 1066, 1067, 922 N.Y.S.2d 166; Matter of Kevin M.H. [ Kenneth H.], 76 A.D.3d 1015, 1016, 908 N.Y.S.2d 109). Where the Family Court is confronted primarily with issues of credibility, its factual findings must be accorded great weight on appeal ( see Matter of Andrew B. [ Deborah B.], 73 A.D.3d 1036, 900 N.Y.S.2d 661; Matter of Faith J., 47 A.D.3d 630, 848 N.Y.S.2d 545; Matter of Michael M., 39 A.D.3d 550, 833 N.Y.S.2d 395; Matter of Angel Marie L., 5 A.D.3d 773, 774, 773 N.Y.S.2d 610).
The finding of neglect against the mother was supported by a preponderance of the evidence which demonstrated
that the subject child's physical, mental, or emotional condition was impaired or was in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the mother's paranoid behavior and mental illness ( see Family Ct. Act § 1012[f]; Matter of Andrew B. [ Deborah B.], 73 A.D.3d at 1036–1037, 900 N.Y.S.2d 661; Matter of Faith J., 47 A.D.3d 630, 848 N.Y.S.2d 545; Matter of Mollye S., 28 A.D.3d 487, 487–488, 812 N.Y.S.2d 142; Matter of Angel Marie L., 5 A.D.3d at 773–774, 773 N.Y.S.2d 610). In addition, the evidence demonstrated that the father knew or should have known about the mother's behavior and mental illness, and he failed to take necessary steps to protect the subject child ( see Matter of Miyani M. [ George T.], 4 A.D.3d 430, 431, 771 N.Y.S.2d 354; Matter of Lewis Y., 293 A.D.2d 684, 684, 740 N.Y.S.2d 633).
The mother's remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court.