Opinion
525869
11-21-2018
In the MATTER OF RENEZMAE X., Alleged to be a Neglected Child. Broome County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Kimberly X., Respondent, and Chad W., Appellant.
Lisa K. Miller, McGraw, for appellant. Thomas P. Coulson, Broome County Department of Social Services, Binghamton, for Broome County Department of Social Services, respondent. David M. Brown, Binghamton, attorney for the child.
Lisa K. Miller, McGraw, for appellant.
Thomas P. Coulson, Broome County Department of Social Services, Binghamton, for Broome County Department of Social Services, respondent.
David M. Brown, Binghamton, attorney for the child.
Before: Lynch, J.P., Clark, Mulvey, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Mulvey, J.
Respondent Chad W. (hereinafter the father) and respondent Kimberly X. (hereinafter the mother) are the unmarried parents of a daughter (born in 2016). Eight days after her birth, the child was temporarily removed from respondents' care and placed in petitioner's custody pending a hearing (see Family Ct. Act § 1022 ). Soon thereafter, petitioner filed a petition against respondents seeking an adjudication of neglect with respect to the child. In September 2017, the father filed a motion for the return of the child. Following a hearing pursuant to Family Ct. Act § 1028, Family Court denied the motion and continued the child's temporary removal. The father now appeals.
The mother separately applied to have the child returned to the home. Family Court denied the mother's motion and, upon appeal, this Court affirmed (Matter of Renezmae X. [Kimberly X.], 161 A.D.3d 1247, 1247, 75 N.Y.S.3d 364 [2018], lv dismissed 31 N.Y.3d 1140, 81 N.Y.S.3d 364, 106 N.E.3d 747 [2018] ).
--------
During the pendency of this appeal, a fact-finding hearing was conducted on the underlying neglect petition and a dispositional order was entered adjudicating the child to be neglected and directing that the child be returned to the care and custody of the father under the supervision of petitioner. Accordingly, the rights of the parties will not be directly affected by a determination of the father's appeal, and the appeal is therefore moot (see Matter of Aiani YY. [Brittney ZZ.], 136 A.D.3d 1232, 1233, 25 N.Y.S.3d 619 [2016] ; Matter of Karrie–Ann ZZ. [Tammy ZZ.], 132 A.D.3d 1180, 1181, 19 N.Y.S.3d 128 [2015] ; Matter of Mary YY. [Albert YY.], 98 A.D.3d 1198, 1198, 950 N.Y.S.2d 918 [2012] ). As the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see Matter of Eyon X. [Ashley W.], 163 A.D.3d 1145, 1146, 76 N.Y.S.3d 429 [2018] ; Matter of Karrie–Ann ZZ. [Tammy ZZ.], 132 A.D.3d at 1181, 19 N.Y.S.3d 128 ), the appeal must be dismissed.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
Lynch, J.P., Clark, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ., concur.