Matter of Lakshmi G. (Jose V.)

Matter of Lakshmi G. (Jose V.) 2013 NY Slip Op 07125 Decided on October 31, 2013 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 31, 2013
Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse, Gische, JJ. 10927-
10927A

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

and

Jose ., etc., Respondent-Appellant, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent.




Tennille M. Tatum-Evans, New York, for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Marta
Ross of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Diane
Pazar of counsel), attorney for the child.

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Carol R. Sherman, J.), entered on or about May 29, 2012, which, upon a fact-finding determination of neglect, placed the subject child in the custody of petitioner until the next permanency hearing, unanimously affirmed, insofar as it brings up for review the fact-finding determination, and the appeal therefrom otherwise dismissed as moot, without costs. Appeal from the fact-finding order, same court and Judge, entered on or about March 5, 2012, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the order of disposition.

The court properly found that petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the father neglected the child by leaving her in the care of the mother, who admitted to him that she was experiencing hallucinations and hearing voices for more than a year, and who later threw the seven-week old child to the pavement, after asserting that she saw a light in the sky and a chariot with a figure, which were signs from God, and that the child was "possessed." A reasonably prudent parent would not have left the child in the care of the mother, given her mental state (see Matter of Joseph Benjamin P. [Allen P.], 81 AD3d 415, 416 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 710 [2011]).

The appeal from the dispositional portion of the order is moot since the placement terms of the order have expired (see Matter of Isaiah M. [Antoya M.], 96 AD3d 516 [1st Dept 2012]).

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

ENTERED: OCTOBER 31, 2013

CLERK