From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Eddie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 25, 1995
219 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

September 25, 1995

Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Burstein, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the fact-finding order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the dispositional order; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the dispositional as placed the children in the care of the Commissioner of Social Services 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.

Although the dispositional order has expired, the adjudication of neglect constitutes a permanent and significant stigma. Moreover, the finding of neglect might indirectly affect the appellant's status in potential future proceedings. Therefore, the appeal from so much of the dispositional order as found that the children were neglected is not academic (see, Matter of H. Children, 156 A.D.2d 520).

The petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the children were neglected by the mother (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 N.Y.2d 1). The mother knew or should have known that the children were either being beaten by the father of three of the children or in imminent danger of similar harm (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]; § 1046 [a] [i]; Matter of Norland B., 191 A.D.2d 632; Matter of Victor S., 166 A.D.2d 535; Matter of Sara X., 122 A.D.2d 795). The mother's failure to protect her children supported the court's finding of neglect against her (see, Matter of New York City Dept. of Social Servs. [Anna Marie A.] v Elena A., 194 A.D.2d 608; Matter of Victor S., supra).

The mother's appeal from so much of the dispositional order as placed the children in the care of the petitioner must be dismissed as academic because the one year placement period has expired, and a subsequent order extending placement has been entered, from which no appeal has been taken (see, Matter of Angelina E., 213 A.D.2d 346; Matter of Tanya M., 207 A.D.2d 656; Matter of Byron A., 112 A.D.2d 30). Copertino, J.P., Santucci, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Eddie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 25, 1995
219 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Matter of Eddie

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of EDDIE E. and Others, Children Alleged to be Neglected…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Sep 25, 1995

Citations

219 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
631 N.Y.S.2d 745

Citing Cases

Onondaga Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Brittany R. (In re Michael S.)

indicating that the child exhibited no new injuries while in foster care despite his continuing sleep…

Matter of Danielle C

The mother's appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the child in the care of the…