St. Lawrence Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Natasha G. (In re Daniel H.)

Full title: In the MATTER OF DANIEL H. and Others, Neglected Children. St. Lawrence…

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: Jan 5, 2023

212 A.D.3d 896 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

179 N.Y.S.3d 629

Opinion

532727

01-05-2023

In the MATTER OF DANIEL H. and Others, Neglected Children. St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services, Respondent; v. Natasha G., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (And Other Related Proceedings.)

Rural Law Center of New York, Inc., Castleton (Kristin A. Bluvas of counsel), for appellant. Stephen D. Button, County Attorney, Canton (Keith S. Massey Jr. of counsel), for respondent. Cheryl L. Maxwell, Plattsburgh, attorney for the children.

Aarons, J.P.

Rural Law Center of New York, Inc., Castleton (Kristin A. Bluvas of counsel), for appellant.

Stephen D. Button, County Attorney, Canton (Keith S. Massey Jr. of counsel), for respondent.

Cheryl L. Maxwell, Plattsburgh, attorney for the children.

Before: Aarons, J.P., Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia and Fisher, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Aarons, J.P. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of St. Lawrence County (Cecily L. Morris, J.), entered December 3, 2020, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, denied respondent Natasha G.’s motion to modify prior orders.

Respondent Natasha G. (hereinafter respondent) is the mother of six children (born in 2004, 2005, 2011, 2015, 2016 and 2019). In 2019, respondent and the children's father consented to petitioner having temporary custody of the children. As relevant here, visitation was suspended between respondent and one of her children. Respondent thereafter moved for, among other things, the reinstatement of visitation with the subject child. Following a hearing, Family Court, in 2020, denied the motion. Respondent appeals.

The parties have advised this Court that, in February 2022, respondent judicially surrendered her parental rights to all six children. In view of this, respondent's appeal is moot (see Matter of Alexus SS. [Chezzy SS.], 130 A.D.3d 1266, 1267, 14 N.Y.S.3d 202 [3d Dept. 2015] ). Because the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see Matter of Norbert YY., 28 A.D.3d 815, 816, 811 N.Y.S.2d 597 [3d Dept. 2006] ; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714–715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 [1980] ), the appeal must be dismissed.

Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia and Fisher, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.