Opinion
526805
02-20-2020
In the MATTER OF JIHAD N., a Neglected Child. Schenectady County Department of Social Services, Respondent; v. Devine N., Appellant. (And Another Related Proceeding.)
Monique B. McBride, Albany, for appellant. Christopher Gardner, County Attorney, Schenectady (Samantha H. Miller of counsel), for respondent. Karen R. Crandall, Schenectady, attorney for the child.
Monique B. McBride, Albany, for appellant.
Christopher Gardner, County Attorney, Schenectady (Samantha H. Miller of counsel), for respondent.
Karen R. Crandall, Schenectady, attorney for the child.
Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Mulvey and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Mulvey, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Schenectady County (Loyola, J.), entered March 14, 2018, which, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act articles 10 and 10–A, continued the placement of the subject child.
Respondent Devine N. (hereinafter the father) and respondent Emily O. (hereinafter the mother) are the parents of the subject child (born in 2016), who was removed from the parents' custody two days after birth. Petitioner filed a separate neglect petition against each parent. In April 2017, based on the father's admission that he had a diagnosis of cocaine dependence and had not been engaged in substance abuse treatment, Family Court issued an order of neglect, continued the child's placement in petitioner's custody and placed the father under a six-month period of supervision. In March 2018, following a permanency hearing, the court issued a permanency order continuing the child's placement with petitioner, with the goal of reunification with the parents. The father and the mother each appeal that permanency order.
Although the mother filed a notice of appeal from the permanency order, her appeal is deemed dismissed because she failed to perfect it "within six months of the date of the notice of appeal" (22 NYCRR 1250.10 [a] ).
--------
The father's challenges to petitioner's initial removal of the child from the parents' care and the underlying finding of neglect are not properly before this Court, as those arguments concern earlier orders, including the April 2017 order, that the father has not appealed (see Matter of Simmes v. Hotaling, 173 A.D.3d 1387, 1387–1388, 100 N.Y.S.3d 577 [2019] ; Matter of Strobel v. Danielson, 159 A.D.3d 1287, 1288 n 4, 74 N.Y.S.3d 387 [2018], lv dismissed 31 N.Y.3d 1071, 78 N.Y.S.3d 268, 102 N.E.3d 1050 [2018] ). This appeal from the March 2018 permanency hearing order is rendered moot by the issuance of three subsequent permanency hearing orders that continued the child's placement with petitioner and did not change the permanency goal of reunification with the parents (see Matter of Cheyeanne E. [Scott E.], 154 A.D.3d 1206, 1206, 63 N.Y.S.3d 585 [2017] ; Matter of Gabriella RR. [Tina SS.], 150 A.D.3d 1427, 1428, 51 N.Y.S.3d 908 [2017] ; Matter of Brendan N. [Arthur N.], 79 A.D.3d 1175, 1177, 912 N.Y.S.2d 706 [2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 735, 917 N.Y.S.2d 99, 942 N.E.2d 310 [2011] ; compare Matter of Nevaeh L. [Katherine L.], 177 A.D.3d 1400, 1401, 113 N.Y.S.3d 454 [2019] [permanency order not rendered moot by subsequent permanency order that modified the permanency goal, thereby altering the petitioner's future obligations]; Matter of Jacelyn TT. [Tonia TT. – Carlton TT.], 80 A.D.3d 1119, 1120, 915 N.Y.S.2d 732 [2011] [same] ). ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ., concur.