In re Leah P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Leah P.

277 A.D.2d 455, 715 N.Y.S.2d 900

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 27, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 455 (In re Leah P.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Leah P., 277 A.D.2d 455, 715 N.Y.S.2d 900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In four related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother and father separately appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kangs County (Pearce, J.), dated May 4, 1998, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated October 23, 1995, made after a hearing, finding, inter alia, that the children were neglected, placed the children in the custody of the Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services for a period of up to 1 year. The appeals bring up for review the fact-finding order dated October 23, 1995.

Ordered that the appeals from so much of the order as placed the children in the care of the Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services for a period of up to 1 year are dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeals from so much of the order as placed the children in the care of the Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services must be dismissed as academic because that order expired by its own terms (see, Matter of Jonathan S., 269 AD2d 454; Matter of Arthur C., 260 AD2d 478). Nevertheless, the adjudication of neglect constitutes a permanent and significant stigma which might indirectly affect the appellants’ status in any potential future proceedings. Therefore, the appeals from so much of the order as determined that the children were neglected is not academic (see, Matter of Jonathan S., supra).

Contrary to the appellants’ contentions, the respondent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the children were neglected (see, Matter of Jonathan S., supra; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N. Y. [Julian L.] v Hyacinth L., 210 AD2d 329, 331). Altman, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In four related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother and father separately appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kangs County (Pearce, J.), dated May 4, 1998, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated October 23, 1995, made after a hearing, finding, inter alia, that the children were neglected, placed the children in the custody of the Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services for a period of up to 1 year. The appeals bring up for review the fact-finding order dated October 23, 1995.

Ordered that the appeals from so much of the order as placed the children in the care of the Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services for a period of up to 1 year are dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeals from so much of the order as placed the children in the care of the Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services must be dismissed as academic because that order expired by its own terms (see, Matter of Jonathan S., 269 AD2d 454; Matter of Arthur C., 260 AD2d 478). Nevertheless, the adjudication of neglect constitutes a permanent and significant stigma which might indirectly affect the appellants’ status in any potential future proceedings. Therefore, the appeals from so much of the order as determined that the children were neglected is not academic (see, Matter of Jonathan S., supra).

Contrary to the appellants’ contentions, the respondent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the children were neglected (see, Matter of Jonathan S., supra; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N. Y. [Julian L.] v Hyacinth L., 210 AD2d 329, 331). Altman, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 455, 715 N.Y.S.2d 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-leah-p-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack