IN RE ALEXANDER L., A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS, ETC., ANDREA L., res-ap, THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, pet-res

10586-10586A. IN RE ALEXANDER L., A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS, ETC., ANDREA L., res-ap, THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, pet-res — Dora M. Lassinger, East Rockaway, for ap — Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Diana Lawless of counsel), for res — TAMARA A. STECKLER, THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY, NEW YORK (CLAIR v. MERKINE OF COUNSEL), ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.—Permanency hearing order, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about July 10, 2012, which changed the permanency goal for the subject child from return to parent to placement for adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Judge, entered on or about July 10, 2012, which denied respondent mother's motion to vacate the portions of a dispositional order entered on or about November 16, 2011, requiring her to comply with a referral for a drug treatment assessment and psychiatric evaluation, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

10586-10586A. IN RE ALEXANDER L., A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS, ETC., ANDREA L., res-ap, THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES, pet-res — Dora M. Lassinger, East Rockaway, for ap — Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Diana Lawless of counsel), for res — TAMARA A. STECKLER, THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY, NEW YORK (CLAIR v. MERKINE OF COUNSEL), ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.—Permanency hearing order, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about July 10, 2012, which changed the permanency goal for the subject child from return to parent to placement for adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Judge, entered on or about July 10, 2012, which denied respondent mother’s motion to vacate the portions of a dispositional order entered on or about November 16, 2011, requiring her to comply with a referral for a drug treatment assessment and psychiatric evaluation, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Family Court Act §1061 provides that “[f]or good cause shown and after due notice,” the court may “set aside, modify or vacate any order issued in the course of a [child protective] proceeding.” However, respondent abandoned the issue of the requirement that she comply with a drug treatment and psychiatric assessment and any recommendations by failing to raise it in her appeal from the dispositional order (see Matter of Breeyanna S., 52 AD3d 342 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 711 [2008]). Accordingly, respondent’s appeal from the denial of her motion to vacate portions of the dispositional order should be dismissed. Were we to reach the merits, we would find that respondent failed to establish good cause to vacate or modify the dispositional order, since she made no showing that she had already complied with a complete psychiatric or drug treatment evaluation.

IN RE ALEXANDER L., A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS, ETC., ANDREA L., res-ap, THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, pet-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal