Opinion
2001-08603, 2001-08604
Argued May 10, 2002.
August 26, 2002.
In two related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals (1) from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Lubow, J.), dated June 5, 2001, which suspended her visitation with the children, and (2), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated August 14, 2001, as (a) upon reargument, adhered to its original determination, (b) denied her application for certain mental health studies of the children, and (c) granted her application for services and assistance to rehabilitate her relationship with the children, by directing the petitioners to provide her with "services and assistance * * * which are necessary and appropriate to facilitate the rehabilitation of the parent-child relationship" and to "continue to exercise due diligence to so offer services and referrals" to her.
Matthew M. Lupoli, Flushing, N.Y., for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo and George Gutwirth of counsel), for respondent ACS Division of Group Homes.
Carrieri Carrieri, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), for respondent St. Christopher-Ottilie.
Monica Drinane, New York, N.Y. (Patricia S. Colella of counsel), Law Guardian for the children.
Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, THOMAS A. ADAMS, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated June 5, 2001, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated August 14, 2001, made upon reargument; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order dated August 14, 2001, as granted the appellant's application for services and assistance is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the appellant is not aggrieved by that portion of the order (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated August 14, 2001, is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion when it indefinitely suspended her supervised visitation with the subject children. An indefinite suspension of supervised visitation was in the best interests of the subject children (see Matter of Melinda A. v. Greene County Dept. of Social Servs., 278 A.D.2d 754; Matter of Licitra v. Licitra, 255 A.D.2d 384, 385). The record supports the finding that the appellant has chronically used her visitation time to behave in a manner which has caused the children, who have special needs, emotional distress. Even in the presence of a supervisor, the appellant persisted in making comments designed to denigrate the children, as well as the father of one child (see Matter of Licitra v. Licitra, supra). The record also supports the finding that continued supervised visitation would be detrimental to the children's therapy and development (see Matter of Melinda A. v. Greene County Dept. of Social Servs., supra).
The appellant's remaining contentions, insofar as reviewed, are without merit.
S. MILLER, J.P., SCHMIDT, ADAMS and TOWNES, JJ., concur.