Opinion
May 10, 1999
Appeal from the Family Court, Queens County (Lubow, J.).
Ordered that the orders of disposition are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant contends that the Family Court's finding that she neglected her children is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]) because there is no proof that they suffered harm when she left them with caretakers who were not apprised of her whereabouts. We disagree. Family Court Act § 1012 Fam. Ct. Act(f) (i) defines a neglected child as one "whose physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of his parent * * * to exercise a minimum degree of care * * * in supplying the child with adequate food, clothing, [and] shelter". Contrary to the appellant's contention, the record supports the Family Court's determination that her two young sons were in imminent danger of becoming impaired when she left them, for an extended period of time, with caretakers who had no information about where she could be reached, or when she would return for her sons. Moreover, the appellant admitted that she had never met or spoken to the person to whom she entrusted her younger son until the day she left her then 22-month-old son in this person's care. Under these circumstances, we decline to disturb the Family Court's finding of neglect ( see, Matter of Rizzo R., 255 A.D.2d 588; Matter of Cody P., 227 A.D.2d 724).
The appellant also objects to the Family Court's orders of disposition because they failed to direct the child protective agency to return the children from Hawaii, where they now reside with their father, and release them into her care. However, since the orders of disposition have expired, the appellant's objections are academic ( see, Matter of Danielle C., 253 A.D.2d 431; Matter of Myra P., 251 A.D.2d 668).
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit.
Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.