IN RE: JASMINE F.R. (Anonymous). (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Kings County (Jacqueline B. Deane, J.), dated October 24, 2023, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court dated January 29, 2024.  The order of fact-finding, after a fact-finding hearing, denied the father's application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051(c) to dismiss the petition and found that the father neglected the subject child.  The order of disposition, insofar as appealed from, was entered upon the order of fact-finding.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order of fact-finding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the order of fact-finding was superseded by the order of disposition and is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In March 2020, the Administration for Children's Services (hereinafter ACS) commenced a neglect proceeding against the father of the subject child, who was born in October 2004.  During that proceeding, the Family Court advised the father that the neglect petition would be dismissed, and ACS was offering a voluntary placement agreement (see Social Services Law § 384–a) so that the child could be placed in foster care.  After the court dismissed that neglect petition, the father refused to execute the voluntary placement agreement, despite several attempts by ACS to obtain his signature.

In June 2022, ACS commenced the instant neglect proceeding, alleging that the father had neglected the child by failing to execute the voluntary placement agreement.  During a fact-finding hearing, the father made an application to dismiss the petition on the ground that further aid of the court was not required (see Family Ct Act § 1051[c]).  After the hearing, the Family Court denied the father's application and found that the father neglected the child.  The father appeals.

Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his application to dismiss the petition pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051(c), as he failed to demonstrate that the aid of the court was not required (see id.;  Matter of Vernice B. [Patton], 129 A.D.3d 714, 715, 10 N.Y.S.3d 323).  Although the child attained the age of 18 during the pendency of the proceeding, she consented to the extension of her placement, and the court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate the neglect proceeding (see Family Ct Act §§ 1013[c];  1055[e];  Matter of Sayeh R., 91 N.Y.2d 306, 310 n. 1, 670 N.Y.S.2d 377, 693 N.E.2d 724;  Matter of Vernice B. [Patton], 129 A.D.3d at 715, 10 N.Y.S.3d 323).

To the extent the father contends that his application to dismiss the petition should have been granted since the child was receiving services from ACS as a result of a neglect proceeding commenced against her as a parent, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review, as it was not raised before the Family Court (see Matter of Lea E.P. [Jason J.P.], 176 A.D.3d 715, 716, 110 N.Y.S.3d 431;  Matter of Kleevuort C. [Fredlyn V.], 84 A.D.3d 1371, 925 N.Y.S.2d 119), and, in any event, without merit (see Matter of Sheena B. [Rory F.], 83 A.D.3d 1056, 1058, 922 N.Y.S.2d 176).

DILLON, J.P., WARHIT, VENTURA and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.