In the Matter of Donald P., a
Child Alleged to be Abused and Neglected. Gail T., Appellant; County of
Westchester, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.)
In the Matter of Dale M., a Child Alleged to be Abused and Neglected. Gail T.,
Appellant; County of Westchester, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.)
2000-02333, 2000-09304
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK,
APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT
285 A.D.2d 510; 727 N.Y.S.2d 162;
2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7085
June 8, 2001, Argued
July 9, 2001, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: [***1]
In two related neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the
mother appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper) of
the Family Court, Westchester County (DiFiore, J.), entered March 2, 2000, which,
after a hearing, inter alia, found that she had neglected her son
Donald P., and (2) an order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper) of the
same court, entered September 7, 2000, which, after a hearing, inter alia,
found that she had neglected her son Dale M.
COUNSEL: George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, N.Y., for
appellant.
Charlene M. Indelicato, County Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Stacey
Dolgin-Kmetz and Barbara Lubin Harmatz of counsel), for respondent.
Adam T. Bradley, White Plains, N.Y., Law Guardian for Donald P.
Robin D. Carton, Harrison, N.Y., Law Guardian for Dale M.
JUDGES: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, ROBERT W.
SCHMIDT, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ. KRAUSMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, SCHMIDT and ADAMS,
JJ., concur.
OPINION: [*511]
[**163] Ordered that the orders are
affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
After two separate fact-finding hearings, the Family Court determined that the
mother, Gail T., neglected [***2] her
two sons, Donald P. and Dale M., by failing to exercise a minimum degree of
care in supplying them with an education (see, Family Ct Act § 1012
[f] [i] [A]). The evidence adduced at those hearings established that despite
the fact that both boys had excessive unexcused absences from school and often failed
their classes, the mother repeatedly ignored the school's efforts to contact
her, rejected remedial services that were offered, and failed to take any other
corrective action. Thus, the presenting agency proved, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that the boys did not regularly attend school and suffered an
impairment as a result of their mother's acts and omissions (see,
Family Ct Act §
1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Jennifer N.,
173 AD2d 971; Matter of Leslie C.,
161 Misc 2d 600).
Contrary to the mother's contention, there is no evidence in the record to
support the claim that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel as a
result of the amount of compensation paid to her assigned counsel.
Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.