St. Lawrence Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Roy Hh. (In re Jadalynn HH.)

Full title: In the Matter of JADALYNN HH., Alleged to be a Neglected Child. ST…

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: Jan 14, 2016

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 224 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

519263

01-14-2016

In the Matter of JADALYNN HH., Alleged to be a Neglected Child. ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent; v. ROY HH., Appellant. (And Another Related Proceeding.)

Susan Patnode, Rural Law Center of New York, Plattsburgh (Rebecca L. Fox of counsel), for appellant. Kathryn A. Exoo, St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services, Canton, for respondent. Maureen McGaw, Canton, attorney for the child.

McCarthy, J.

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ.

Susan Patnode, Rural Law Center of New York, Plattsburgh (Rebecca L. Fox of counsel), for appellant.

Kathryn A. Exoo, St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services, Canton, for respondent.

Maureen McGaw, Canton, attorney for the child. McCarthy, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeals from two orders of the Family Court of St. Lawrence County (Morris, J.), entered June 2, 2014, which granted petitioner's applications, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to, among other things, temporarily remove the subject child from respondent's custody.

In March 2014, petitioner commenced these two proceedings on allegations that respondent violated an order of protection and neglected the child (born in 2010). Petitioner requested that the child be removed from respondent's care and, following a hearing pursuant to Family Ct Act § 1027, Family Court ordered the temporary removal of the child and placement with petitioner. Respondent appeals.

During the pendency of these appeals, Family Court has adjudicated the child to be neglected by respondent and placement was continued with petitioner. Given this subsequent order, respondent's appeals from the prior temporary orders of removal have been rendered moot, and they do not fall into the exception to that doctrine ( see Matter of Brandon WW. [Kimberley WW.], 116 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2014]; Matter of Mary YY. [Albert YY.], 98 AD3d 1198, 1198 [2012]; Matter of Cali L., 61 AD3d 1131, 1133 [2009]).

Lahtinen, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the appeals are dismissed, as moot, without costs.