Opinion
2012-07-19
In the Matter of NASIRA D. and Others, Neglected Children. Broome County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Madelyn D. et al., Appellants. (And Another Related Proceeding.)
Alena Van Tull, Binghamton, for Madelyn D., appellant. Teresa C. Mulliken, Harpersfield, for Direll D., appellant.
Alena Van Tull, Binghamton, for Madelyn D., appellant. Teresa C. Mulliken, Harpersfield, for Direll D., appellant.
Kuredin V. Eytina, Broome County Department of Social Services, Binghamton, for respondent.
F. Daniel Casella, Binghamton, attorney for the children.
Before: MERCURE, J.P., ROSE, KAVANAGH, McCARTHY and EGAN JR., JJ.
ROSE, J.
Appeals from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Connerton, J.), entered August 30, 2011, which granted petitioner's applications, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Ct. Act article 10–A, to approve the permanency plans for respondents' children.
Respondents are the married parents of six children (born in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2010). In 2008, the five oldest children were adjudicated to be neglected by respondents and placed in the custody of petitioner. In 2011, following a permanency hearing, Family Court modified their permanency planning goal from reunification with respondents to adoption, giving rise to these appeals.
In 2012, Family Court issued an order adjudicating the five older children to be permanently neglected, terminating respondents' parental rights and suspending the judgment for 12 months. The 2012 order also approved a revised permanency plan of reunification with respondents, pending respondents' compliance with the terms of the suspended judgment. In view of this subsequent order, the issues asserted on appeal regardingthe 2011 permanency hearing order are now moot ( see Matter of Andrew L., 64 A.D.3d 915, 918, 883 N.Y.S.2d 607 [2009];see also Matter of Brendan N. [Arthur N.], 79 A.D.3d 1175, 1177, 912 N.Y.S.2d 706 [2010],lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 735, 917 N.Y.S.2d 99, 942 N.E.2d 310 [2011];Matter of Haylee RR., 56 A.D.3d 968, 968, 867 N.Y.S.2d 352 [2008] ), and we are unpersuaded that the exception to the mootness doctrine is applicable here ( see Matter of Destiny HH., 63 A.D.3d 1230, 1231, 880 N.Y.S.2d 371 [2009],lv. denied13 N.Y.3d 706, 2009 WL 2959670 [2009];Matter of Brenden O., 13 A.D.3d 779, 780, 785 N.Y.S.2d 723 [2004] ).
ORDERED that the appeals are dismissed, as moot, without costs.