In re Regina P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Regina P.

19 A.D.3d 698, 798 N.Y.S.2d 124, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7249

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

DecidedJune 27, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 698 (In re Regina 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 Regina P., 19 A.D.3d 698, 798 N.Y.S.2d 124, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7249 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Rockland County (Horowitz, J., on the order; Garvey, J., at hearing), dated January 20, 2004, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that she had neglected the subject child and placed her under the supervision of the Rockland County Department of Social Services, Child Protective Services, for a period of one year.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as placed the mother under the supervision of the Rockland County Department of Social Services, Child Protective Services, for a period of one year is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, and it is further,

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from that portion of the order of fact-finding and disposition which placed the mother under the supervision of the Rockland County Department of Social Services, Child Protective Services, for a period of one year must be dismissed as academic because that portion of the order expired by its own terms (see Matter of Dareth O., 304 AD2d 667 [2003]). However, the adjudication of neglect constitutes a permanent and significant stigma which might indirectly affect the mother’s status in any future proceedings. Therefore, the appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as determined that she neglected her child is not academic (see Matter of Dareth O., supra).

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the petitioner established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject child was educationally neglected (see Matter of Amanda K., 13 AD3d 193 [2004]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Rockland County (Horowitz, J., on the order; Garvey, J., at hearing), dated January 20, 2004, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that she had neglected the subject child and placed her under the supervision of the Rockland County Department of Social Services, Child Protective Services, for a period of one year.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as placed the mother under the supervision of the Rockland County Department of Social Services, Child Protective Services, for a period of one year is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, and it is further,

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from that portion of the order of fact-finding and disposition which placed the mother under the supervision of the Rockland County Department of Social Services, Child Protective Services, for a period of one year must be dismissed as academic because that portion of the order expired by its own terms (see Matter of Dareth O., 304 AD2d 667 [2003]). However, the adjudication of neglect constitutes a permanent and significant stigma which might indirectly affect the mother’s status in any future proceedings. Therefore, the appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as determined that she neglected her child is not academic (see Matter of Dareth O., supra).

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the petitioner established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject child was educationally neglected (see Matter of Amanda K., 13 AD3d 193 [2004]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 698, 798 N.Y.S.2d 124, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-regina-p-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack