Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: ANTHONY C., and Others, Dependent Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc. Bernice C., et al., Respondents-Appellants, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. Hoffman, J.), entered on or about September 7, 2007, which, after a fact-finding hearing, determined that respondents had neglected the subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order of disposition, same court and Judge, entered on or about October 29, 2007, which, inter alia, placed Anthony and Mia in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.
The finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence showing the unsafe and unsanitary conditions of the mother's apartment, the mother's refusal to obtain treatment for her mental condition and to accept the agency's assistance in locating alternative housing, and the father's failure to ensure that the mother obtained treatment and that the children had adequate shelter and maintained their benefits (see Family Court Act § 1046[b][i]; 1012[f][i]; see e.g. Matter of Ashante M., 19 A.D.3d 249, 797 N.Y.S.2d 68 [2005]; Matter of Tia B., 257 A.D.2d 366, 366, 683 N.Y.S.2d 44 [1999]; Matter of Ayana E., 162 A.D.2d 330, 557 N.Y.S.2d 14 [1990], lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 708, 560 N.Y.S.2d 990, 561 N.E.2d 890 [1990] ). The mother failed to preserve her arguments that the Family Court improperly admitted psychiatric reports prepared and certified by the Human Resources Administration (HRA) because they contain the doctors' opinions or expert proof and because they contain statements by others with no duty to report to the HRA. In any event, these arguments lack merit because the certified records were properly admitted pursuant to Family Court Act § 1046(a)(iv). Contrary to the mother's contention, testimony was not needed to establish a proper foundation for the admission of the records (see id.).
We decline to reach the merits of the dispositional order appealed from, the order having been rendered academic by a subsequent order, from which no appeal has been taken, that extended the placement of Anthony and Mia (see Matter of M.-H. Children, 284 A.D.2d 188, 189, 726 N.Y.S.2d 107 [2001] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 03, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)