In re Albert B.
Matter of Albert Francis B. v
Melissa N.
2009 NY Slip Op 07403
Decided on October 13, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau
pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to
revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Decided on October 13, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF
APPELLATE DIVISION :
SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
FRED T. SANTUCCI
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.
2008-04986
(Docket Nos. N-15761-06, N-15897-06)
[*1]In the Matter of Albert
Francis B. (Anonymous). Westchester County Department of Social
Services, petitioner-respondent;
and
Melissa N.
(Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent.
George E. Reed, Jr.,
Charlene M. Indelicato,
Dolgin-Kmetz and Justin R. Adin of
counsel), for petitioner-
respondent.
Lisa F. Colin,
DECISION & ORDER
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to
Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from
so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court,
Westchester County (Davidson, J.), entered April 28, 2008, as, after a hearing,
found that she had neglected her newborn son.
ORDERED that the order of
fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without
costs or disbursements.
The appeal from the portion of the order of
fact-finding and disposition which, after a hearing, found that the mother
neglected her newborn son, was not rendered academic by reason of the mother's
subsequent execution of a surrender of the child for adoption, since that
adjudication constitutes a permanent and significant stigma which might
indirectly affect the mother's status in future proceedings (see generally
Matter of Ifeiye O., 53 AD3d 501, 502; Matter of Daqwuan G., 29 AD3d 694).
Contrary to the mother's contentions, the Family
Court's finding of neglect based upon the mother's history of mental illness,
which impaired her ability to safely care for the subject child, and her
failure to exercise a minimum degree of care in supplying the child with
adequate food, clothing, and shelter, was supported by a preponderance of the
evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012[f][i]; see also
Matter of Ifeiye O., 53 AD3d 501; Matter of Krewsean S., 273 AD2d 393).
The mother's remaining contentions are without
merit.
MASTRO, J.P., SANTUCCI, CHAMBERS and LOTT, JJ., concur. [*2]
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court