Matter of Kiera R. (Kinyetta R.)

Matter of Matter of Kiera R. (Kinyetta R.) 2012 NY Slip Op 06889 Decided on October 16, 2012 Appellate Division, First 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 16, 2012
Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, DeGrasse, Román, JJ.
8308

[*1]In re Kiera R., A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc.,

and

Kinyetta R., Respondent-Appellant, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent.




Todd D. Kadish, Brooklyn, for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Karen
M. Griffin of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Marcia
Egger of counsel), attorney for the child.

Order of fact-finding and disposition, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.F.C.), entered on or about November 30, 2010, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent mother neglected the subject child, placed the subject child in the custody of the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services, unanimously affirmed, without costs, as to the fact-finding, and the appeal therefrom otherwise dismissed, without costs, as moot.

The finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, which established that respondent neglected the subject child by failing to provide her with proper supervision and guardianship. The child frequently left respondent's home for days at a time and respondent failed to provide alternate living arrangements, forcing the child, for at least part of the time, to live on the streets (Family Ct Act § 1012[f][i]). Further, the evidence showed that respondent failed to seek professional counseling or therapy for the child, whose behavior was uncontrollable, even though such counseling had been recommended by medical professionals (see e.g. Matter of Perry S. v Cynthia S., 22 AD3d 234, 235 [1st Dept 2005]; Matter of Deanna R.G., 83 AD3d 1064 [2d Dept 2011]).

Respondent did not object to the court's entry of a dispositional order without a formal dispositional hearing, and her present objection is, therefore, unpreserved (see Matter of Crystal P., 93 AD3d 576 [1st Dept 2012]). In any event, given that a final discharge of the instant case [*2]became effective on March 7, 2012, the child's 18th birthday, the appeal from the dispositional order is moot (see e.g., Matter of Brianna R. (Marisol G.), 78 AD3d 437, 439 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 702 [2011]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 16, 2012

CLERK