The above-entitled matter is before this court pursuant to a Motion by the Oswego County Department of Social Services (hereinafter know as DSS) under FCA §1061 to modify a prior dispositional order of this court, signed November 18, 2021 and entered on December 14, 2021. The respondent in the above case, B.F., had admitted neglect of the infant child, A.B., date of birth xx/xx/ 2018. The extent of her admission resulted in a finding of neglect was that " she has substance abuse issues that impair her ability to provide adequate care, guardianship and supervision to the subject child, thereby placing the child at risk of harm. The physical, mental and emotional condition of the child was impaired or in imminent danger of becoming impaired constituting child neglect ". The infant child was originally released to her father, E. B. pursuant to a Temporary Order of Removal signed by the court April 30, 2021. The Order of Disposition as to respondent B. F. signed November 18, 2021 provided for several decretal paragraphs of actions which Ms. B. F. had to engage in and/or providers she had to contact and follow their directives until successfully discharged therefrom. The Order signed November 18, 2021 continued the release of the child to the non-respondent parent, E. B., pursuant to FCA §1057. The child has been with Mr. E.B. since the inception of these proceedings up to and including the present time. The said order further provided that Ms. B.F. would be under the supervision of DSS pursuant to FCA Section 1057.

DSS filed an Amended Notice of Motion, dated January 7, 2022 with the court on said date wherein they moved pursuant to FCA §1061 to modify the aforesaid dispositional order [*2]dated November 18, 2021. The manner in which they sought to modify same was to modify it from a release to a supervision order. The department sought to vacate the release to the non-respondent parent, E. B., of the infant child and return the child to respondent B.F. with various orders for supervision on the respondent for a period of six (6) months. The Notice of Motion was originally returnable March 1, 2022. The Amended Notice of Motion provided that any affidavits and oppositions thereto had to be filed with the court by February 21, 2022. DSS had not served the Notice of Motion upon E.B., the non-respondent parent. Further, Mr. E.B. advised that he opposed the motion in any event and requested the assignment of counsel on his behalf.Therefore, the Court granted his request for counsel and subsequently adjourned the motion to March 22, 2022. On the return date, DSS appeared with counsel, Respondent, B. F., appeared with counsel, Anastasia Gagas, Esq., AFC for the child appeared, as well as the non-respondent parent, E.B., and his counsel, Audrey Flynn, Esq. ^[FN1] The court heard further oral argument both for and against the motion. All counsel were granted leave to submit law. The court received a memorandum of law with attached case law from Audrey Flynn Esq., attorney for the nonrespondent father. The memo opposed the modification of the Order of fact finding and placement from the appearance on November 18, 2021 signed December 13, 2021 and entered December 14, 2021 which continued the release of the child to the father. Further the memo suggests the court should hold a joint hearing on the proposed modification of the aforesaid order and Mr. E. B.'s Article 6 FCA modification of custody petition before granting DSS's pending motion. The memo concedes that the court has the authority to grant DSS's motion over the objection of the nonrespondent father.

DSS makes the instant motion to modify the prior dispositional order alleging "good cause" exists to terminate the release of the child in favor of Mr. E. B., to restore physical custody of the child to Ms. F., and otherwise continue and an order of supervision for six (6) months. FCA §1061 provides that an order of the court may be modified for "good cause" shown. Prior to the entry of the Temporary Order of Removal entered by this court in April, 2021, and the release of the child to E. B., there had been in existence an Order of Custody signed September 26, 2019 and entered September 30, 2019, wherein Ms.B. F. had been granted physical custody of the infant child, A. B. The subsequent Temporary Order of Removal and the later Dispositional Order of November 18, 2021 superseded the grant of physical custody as set forth in the aforesaid Article 6 order.

The basis of "good cause" alleged by DSS such that the dispositional order should be granted and the release to Mr. E.B. vacated and modified and the infant child returned to the care of B.F. was set forth in Paragraph 4 of the motion papers that, since the date of the dispositional order, there has been a change in circumstances in that:

"Respondent B. F. successfully completed the required parent educator classes and substance abuse treatment, is currently participating in parenting classes and now have stable [*3]housing suitable for subject child, A.B. Respondent B.F. is currently attending mental health treatment through Farnham Family Services "

In Paragraph 6 of the Affidavit in Support of the Motion, DSS further seeks an Order of Supervision with the decretal paragraph outlined therein for a period of six (6) months from the granting of the order if the court does grant same.

The basis of the non-respondent parent's opposition to the motion is more particularly outlined in his custody petition filed on page 2 thereof. He alleges the following:

A. The child has been in the sole care and custody of the petitioner father for the last 12 months and she is currently thriving in his home;

B. The respondent mother was recently adjudicated of neglecting the child and while she has taken steps to remedy the situation which created the neglect, she has not fully addressed all of those concerns;

C. Upon information and belief, despite an Order of Protection, respondent mother is still in contact with B.J., who is no relation to the subject child but was a named respondent in the circumstances warranting the removal of this child and that if she were to have the child returned to her she would be unwilling or unable to ensure he has no contact with the child.

The aforesaid allegations are conclusory only and have no factual content therein. In regard to the application of DSS, they have indicated she has fulfilled most requirements in the original dispositional order except insofar as she is continuing to receive mental health treatment. In the case of In re Daniella A., 153 AD3d 426 (1st Dept. 2017) the court, on a 1061 motion, found that " the mother's strict compliance with the dispositional order, and her clear dedication to ameliorating the conditions that led to the neglect finding, constituted 'good cause' warranting the relief requested " (at page 427). (See Matter of Bernalysa K., 118 AD3d 885 [2d Dept. 2014] and Matter of Alexander L., 109 A.D, 3d 767 [1st Dept. 2013]). In the case of Matter of Emma R., 173 AD3d 1037 (2d Dept 2019) ), the court stated on a motion to modify under FCA §1061 in the dispositional order that " the mother demonstrated that she had successfully completed the court-ordered programs, that she had fully complied with the conditions of the order of disposition, and that the requested modification of the order of fact-finding and disposition was in the best interests of the children " (at page 1039). Also in the Matter of Aaliyah T., 177 AD3d 748 (2d Dept. 2019), the court stated under a motion to modify a dispositional order pursuant to FCA §1061 that " the mother demonstrated good cause to vacate so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition the mother demonstrated that she had successfully completed the court-ordered services and programs and that the requested vacatur of the finding of neglect was in the best interests of the children " (at page 750).

Accordingly, after due deliberation on the issues before the Court, and considering the [*4]arguments in support and in opposition, the Court finds that DSS has established good cause in support of the requested relief and the subject motion is hereby granted in all respects.