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: KIEARA N. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; v. Shasha F. (Anonymous), Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1)
IN RE: Keyana N. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; v. Shasha F. (Anonymous), Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2)
IN RE: Nayquan N. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; v. Shasha F. (Anonymous), Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3)
DECISION & ORDER
In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Kings County (Barbara Salinitro, J.), dated June 21, 2016, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court (Lillian Wan, J.) dated August 8, 2017. The order of fact-finding, after a hearing, found that the mother neglected the subject children. The order of disposition, after a hearing, and upon the mother's failure to appear at the dispositional hearing, awarded custody of the subject children to the maternal grandmother.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order of fact-finding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order of disposition and is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it is further,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 appeal from the order of disposition is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, except with respect to matters which were the subject of contest (see CPLR 5511; Matter of Marchella P. [Loretta B.-B.], 137 A.D.3d 1286, 1287, 28 N.Y.S.3d 413); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
Since the order of disposition appealed from was made upon the mother's default, review is limited to matters which were the subject of contest in the Family Court (see Matter of Marchella P. [Loretta B.-B.], 137 A.D.3d 1286, 1287, 28 N.Y.S.3d 413; Matter of Yu F. [Fen W.], 122 A.D.3d 761, 996 N.Y.S.2d 186; Matter of Smith v. Howard, 113 A.D.3d 781, 781, 978 N.Y.S.2d 856). Accordingly, on these appeals, review is limited to the Family Court's finding that the mother neglected the subject children.
The petitioner commenced these proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, alleging that the mother neglected the subject children by failing to provide them with adequate shelter and that she neglected the child Keyana N. by failing to provide that child with an adequate education, as demonstrated by the child's excessive school absences and tardiness. After a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found that the mother neglected the children.
To establish educational neglect, a petitioner is required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a child's “physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired” due to the parent's failure to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with an adequate education (Family Ct. Act § 1012[f][i][A]; see Family Ct. Act § 1046[b][i] ). Here, the petitioner established that the mother neglected Keyana N. by failing to provide that child with an adequate education. The petitioner met its prima facie burden of establishing educational neglect by submitting unrebutted evidence of the child's excessive school absences and tardiness along with the child's failing grades (see Matter of McKain W. [Coreen M.], 157 A.D.3d 708, 708–709, 66 N.Y.S.3d 624; Matter of Joyitha M. [Reshmi M.], 121 A.D.3d 900, 901, 994 N.Y.S.2d 393). The mother did not offer any evidence in support of a reasonable justification for the child's absences, tardiness, or failing grades (see Matter of Jamel N.A. [Nijer S.J.], 161 A.D.3d 1070, 1070, 77 N.Y.S.3d 126; Matter of Kiamal E. [Kim R.], 139 A.D.3d 1062, 1063, 30 N.Y.S.3d 830; Matter of Khalil M. [Ebony A.], 94 A.D.3d 1003, 1003, 942 N.Y.S.2d 370).
Moreover, the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing established that the mother maintained the children's home in a deplorable and unsanitary condition (see Matter of Mariah C. [Frey C.-M.], 84 A.D.3d 1372, 1372–1373, 923 N.Y.S.2d 892; Matter of Isaac J. [Joyce J.], 75 A.D.3d 506, 507, 904 N.Y.S.2d 755; Matter of Lauren R., 18 A.D.3d 761, 794 N.Y.S.2d 910; Matter of Todd D., 9 A.D.3d 462, 463, 780 N.Y.S.2d 180).
Accordingly, we agree with the Family Court's finding that the mother neglected the children.
DILLON, J.P., BARROS, IANNACCI and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.
Response sent, thank you
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.
Docket No: 2017-09389
Decided: December 05, 2018
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.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
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)