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: DEREK P. (Anonymous), JR. Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent; Derek P. (Anonymous), Sr., appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Shamira P. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent; Derek P. (Anonymous), Sr., appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 2).
In related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Elkins, J.), dated March 14, 2006, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated March 11, 2004, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had neglected his children, extended the placement of the children until the next permanency hearing to be held within six months from the date of the order of disposition. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order.
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as extended the placement of the children is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as extended the placement of the children must be dismissed as academic because the period of placement has expired (see Matter of H. Children, 276 A.D.2d 485, 714 N.Y.S.2d 96). The adjudication of neglect, however, constitutes a permanent and significant stigma which might indirectly affect the appellant's status in any future proceedings (see Matter of Sal D., 307 A.D.2d 261, 262, 762 N.Y.S.2d 265; Matter of H. Children, supra ). Therefore, the appeal from so much of the dispositional order as brings up for review the determination that the appellant neglected his children is not academic (see Matter of Sal D., supra; Matter of H. Children, supra ).
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court's finding of neglect based on the use of excessive corporal punishment and acts of domestic violence perpetrated in the presence of the children is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Sheneika V., 20 A.D.3d 541, 542, 800 N.Y.S.2d 424; Matter of Aminat O., 20 A.D.3d 480, 481, 797 N.Y.S.2d 767; Matter of Richard T., 12 A.D.3d 986, 987-988, 785 N.Y.S.2d 169; Matter of Athena M., 253 A.D.2d 669, 678 N.Y.S.2d 11).
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: September 11, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)