Case Name: In the Matter of Skye C., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Monica S., Appellant; Administration for Children's Services, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-04-23
Citations: 127 A.D.3d 603
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Skye C., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Monica S., Appellant; Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent.
Judges: Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 127
Pages: 603–604

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Skye C., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Monica S., Appellant; Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent.
[8 NYS3d 126]

Opinion:
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about February 7, 2014, to the extent it brings up for review a fact-finding order, same court and Judge, entered on or about January 9, 2014, which found that respondent mother had neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, and the appeal therefrom otherwise dismissed, without costs, as moot. Appeal from fact-finding order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the order of disposition.
The finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; 1046 [b] [i]). The record demonstrates that the mother's untreated mental illness placed the child at imminent risk of impairment. Hospital records show that the mother was diagnosed with several mental illnesses and that she suffered from paranoid ideation. Further, the testimony of the mother and the caseworkers show that the mother socially isolated the child and kept the child confined to an unsafe and unsanitary room in a shelter most of the time (see Matter of Immanuel C.-S. [Debra C.], 104 AD3d 615 [1st Dept 2013]). Expert testimony was not required to demonstrate the mother's mental illness (see Matter of Jayvien E. [Marisol T.], 70 AD3d 430, 436 [1st Dept 2010]).
The mother's appeal from the disposition is moot, since the dispositional order has expired by its own terms and was superseded by two subsequent permanency orders (see Matter of Fawaz A. [Franklyn B.C.], 112 AD3d 550, 551 [1st Dept 2013]).
Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.