Admin. for Children's Servs. v. Jalessa F. (In re Sahyir F.)

212 A.D.3d 808

181 N.Y.S.3d 660

In the MATTER OF SAHYIR F. (Anonymous).

Administration for Children's Services, respondent;

v.Jalessa F. (Anonymous), et al., appellants.

2021–03762, 2021–03763, 2021–03764, 2021–07178

Docket No. N–30624–16

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—September 19, 2022

January 25, 2023

Helen Chowes, New York, NY, for appellant Jalessa F.

Diana Kelly, Jamaica, NY, for appellant Sahan F.

Sylvia O. Hinds–Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Scott Shorr, Elizabeth I. Freedman, and Daniel Matza–Brown of counsel), for respondent.

Twyla Carter, New York, NY (Dawne A. Mitchell and Diane Pazar of counsel), attorney for the child.

VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, LARA J. GENOVESI, BARRY E. WARHIT, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Jalessa F. appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Kings County (Elizabeth Barnett, J.), dated January 17, 2020, (2) an order of disposition of the same court dated January 5, 2021, (3) an order of the same court dated April 6, 2021, and (4) an order of disposition of the same court dated April 6, 2021, and Sahan F. appeals from the order of disposition dated April 6, 2021. The order of fact-finding, after a fact-finding hearing, inter alia, found that Jalessa F. and Sahan F. neglected the subject child. The order of disposition dated January 5, 2021, upon the order of fact-finding and after a dispositional hearing, inter alia, released the subject child to Jalessa F. under the supervision of the Administration for Children's Services for a period of 12 months. The order dated April 6, 2021, insofar as appealed from, denied Jalessa F.’s application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1061 to modify the order of disposition dated January 5, 2021, so as to end the period of supervision. The order of disposition dated April 6, 2021, insofar as appealed from by Jalessa F., upon the other orders and after a dispositional hearing, released the child to Jalessa F. with continued supervision by the Administration for Children's Services. The order of disposition dated April 6, 2021, insofar as appealed from by Sahan F., upon the order of fact-finding and after a dispositional hearing, placed Sahan F. under the supervision of the Administration for Children's Services until January 4, 2022.

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 dated January 5, 2021, and is brought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition dated April 6, 2021; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal from the order of disposition dated January 5, 2021, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order of disposition dated April 6, 2021, insofar as appealed from by Jalessa F.; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated April 6, 2021, is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal by Jalessa F. from so much of the order of disposition dated April 6, 2021, as released the child to Jalessa F. with continued supervision by the Administration for Children's Services, and the appeal by Sahan F. from so much of the order of disposition dated April 6, 2021, as placed Sahan F. under the supervision of the Administration for Children's Services until January 4, 2022, are dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the periods of supervision have expired; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order of disposition dated April 6, 2021, is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The Administration for Children's Services (hereinafter ACS) commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, alleging, inter alia, that Jalessa F. (hereinafter the mother) neglected her son, who was five and seven years old at the relevant times, and that Sahan F. (hereinafter the stepfather) neglected the child when he was five years old by inflicting excessive corporal punishment on him. Following a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found, among other things, that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the mother and the stepfather neglected the child by inflicting excessive corporal punishment on him. Following a...