Seneca County Attorney, Respondent. v. << (2004)

 Petitioner and her daughter, Sarah G., each appeal from an order that adjudicated Sarah to be a person in need of supervision and placed her in the custody of the Seneca County Commissioner of Social Services.   We note that the initial placement was subsequently modified by placing Sarah at home in the custody of her parents and on probation.   Family Court thereafter terminated the period of probation when the family moved to Arizona, and thus the contentions of petitioner and Sarah with respect to the dispositional hearing are moot (see Matter of Tabitha LL., 216 A.D.2d 651, 653, 627 N.Y.S.2d 807, affd. 87 N.Y.2d 1009, 643 N.Y.S.2d 466, 666 N.E.2d 171;  Matter of Shannon R., 278 A.D.2d 939, 718 N.Y.S.2d 677;  Matter of Chad H., 278 A.D.2d 601, 717 N.Y.S.2d 725).

 Contrary to petitioner's contention, we conclude that the order adjudicating Sarah a person in need of supervision articulated a sufficient basis for the court's disposition based upon references therein to a probation department predispositional report, a mental health evaluation, and Sarah's in-court admissions (see Family Ct. Act § 754[2] ).   The contention of petitioner that she was coerced into filing the petition is based upon matters outside the record, and we are therefore unable to review that contention (see Matter of Ernest LL. v. Rosemary LL., 50 A.D.2d 706, 707, 375 N.Y.S.2d 495).   Contrary to petitioner's further contention, the court properly allowed Sarah to waive a fact-finding hearing upon the Law Guardian's advice to do so (see § 321.3[1];  see also Tabitha LL., 87 N.Y.2d at 1010, 643 N.Y.S.2d 466, 666 N.E.2d 171).   Contrary to the contention of Sarah, she received meaningful representation (see Matter of Peter VV., 169 A.D.2d 995, 996-997, 565 N.Y.S.2d 271;  see generally Matter of Jesse WW., 240 A.D.2d 885, 886-887, 658 N.Y.S.2d 747).   From our review of the record, we conclude that the Law Guardian did not move to dismiss the petition because her client did not want to return home (cf. Chad H., 278 A.D.2d at 602-603, 717 N.Y.S.2d 725).   We have examined petitioner's remaining contentions and conclude that they are lacking in merit.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: