Opinion
523108.
10-26-2017
In the Matter of CHEYEANNE E. and Another, Abused and Neglected Children. St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Scott E., Appellant. (And Another Related Proceeding.)
Susan Patnode, Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Cynthia Feathers of counsel), for appellant. Andrew S. Moses, St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services, Canton, for respondent. Omshanti Parnes, Plattsburgh, attorney for the children.
Susan Patnode, Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Cynthia Feathers of counsel), for appellant.
Andrew S. Moses, St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services, Canton, for respondent.
Omshanti Parnes, Plattsburgh, attorney for the children.
Before: MCCARTHY, J.P., EGAN JR., LYNCH, DEVINE and PRITZKER, JJ.
EGAN JR., J.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of St. Lawrence County (Morris, J.), entered May 6, 2016, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct. Act articles 10 and 10–A, extended the placement of respondent's children.
Respondent is the father of a son (born in 2007) and a daughter (born in 2008). In March 2014, the children were removed from respondent's care and temporarily placed with petitioner amidst allegations of neglect. In December 2015, the children were adjudicated to be abused and neglected, their placement with petitioner was continued and respondent was directed to, among other things, cooperate with petitioner's recommendations with regard to treatment and counseling. Following a February 2016 permanency hearing, Family Court determined, among other things, that petitioner had made reasonable efforts to finalize the permanency plan for reunification and continued placement of the children in petitioner's custody. Respondent now appeals.
At the outset, since three permanency orders have been issued subsequent to the order presently appealed from, this appeal has been rendered moot (see Matter of Gabriella RR. [Tina SS.], 150 A.D.3d 1427, 1428, 51 N.Y.S.3d 908 [2017] ; Matter of Lauren L. [Cassi M.], 79 A.D.3d 1172, 1172, 911 N.Y.S.2d 678 [2010] ). We further find that, contrary to the position of respondent and the attorney for the children, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply under the circumstances (see Matter of Nigel XX. [Tabitha YY.], 106 A.D.3d 1407, 1408, 965 N.Y.S.2d 736 [2013] ; Matter of Destiny HH., 63 A.D.3d 1230, 1231, 880 N.Y.S.2d 371 [2009], lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 706, 2009 WL 2959670 [2009] ; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 [1980] ).
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
McCARTHY, J.P., LYNCH, DEVINE and PRITZKER, JJ., concur.