Opinion
November 27, 1985
Appeal from the Family Court of Clinton County (Feinberg, J.).
Respondent, after exhibiting disobedient behavior in school and being repeatedly truant, had filed against her in Family Court a petition to have her declared a person in need of supervision. The appointed Law Guardian reviewed the petition with respondent and her father and informed them of the seriousness of the matter. Respondent and her parents attended the ensuing hearing, at which the court gave all of them an opportunity to speak. All three declined that opportunity. In addition, after being advised of her right to remain silent and in response to the court's inquiry, respondent admitted the allegations contained in the petition. Thereafter, Family Court adjudicated respondent a person in need of supervision and ordered that she be placed in the custody of the Clinton County Commissioner of Social Services for a period of 18 months and under the supervision of the County Probation Department for one year. This appeal by respondent ensued.
Family Court properly found that respondent was "beyond the lawful control of parent or other lawful authority" (Family Ct Act § 712 [a]). Here, the "lawful authority" which was unable to control respondent was petitioner, the Ausable Valley Middle-High School (see, Matter of Morrison, 110 Misc.2d 329, 330; Besharov, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A, Family Ct Act § 712, p. 21). Since respondent herself freely and knowingly admitted the allegations in the petition (cf. Matter of Diallo H., 94 A.D.2d 976), we conclude that, based upon the petition, Family Court properly adjudicated her to be in need of supervision (see, Matter of Terry UU, 52 A.D.2d 683, 684). Furthermore, we have examined the record in this case and find respondent's allegations that procedural errors were committed to be without merit (cf. Matter of Lloyd P., 99 A.D.2d 812, 813; Matter of Kelly Sue N., 94 A.D.2d 976).
We do, however, modify Family Court's order with regard to the placement of respondent both in the custody of the local Commissioner of Social Services and, concurrently, under the supervision of the Probation Department. As this court has noted in the past, Family Court Act § 754 mandates that "the supervision of the respondent child * * * be placed in one or the other of the responsible departments, but not with both jointly or simultaneously" (Matter of Brian KK., 84 A.D.2d 901, 902; see, Matter of Lester NN., 76 A.D.2d 687, 688). Accordingly, once Family Court placed respondent in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services, it lacked authority to also place the Probation Department in a supervisory role (see, id.).
Order modified, on the law, without costs, by striking so much thereof as requires involvement by the Clinton County Probation Department in the supervision of respondent, and, as so modified, affirmed. Kane, J.P., Main, Casey, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.