Opinion
526481
02-21-2019
In the MATTER OF KIMBERLY RR., Alleged to be a Neglected Child. Sullivan County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Gloria RR., Respondent. v. Pedro RR., Appellant.
Cliff Gordon, Monticello, for appellant. Constantina Hart, Sullivan County Department of Social Services, Monticello, for Sullivan County Department of Social Services, respondent. Lindsay H. Kaplan, Kingston, for Gloria RR., respondent. Jane M. Bloom, Monticello, attorney for the child.
Cliff Gordon, Monticello, for appellant.
Constantina Hart, Sullivan County Department of Social Services, Monticello, for Sullivan County Department of Social Services, respondent.
Lindsay H. Kaplan, Kingston, for Gloria RR., respondent.
Jane M. Bloom, Monticello, attorney for the child.
Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Aarons, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Garry, P.J.Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Sullivan County (McGuire, J.), entered March 8, 2018, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act articles 10 and 10–A, continued the placement of the subject child.
Pedro RR. (hereinafter the father) is the father of the subject child (born in 2004). In March 2015, Family Court adjudicated the child to be neglected by the father, placed the child in petitioner's custody, and issued an order of protection against the father. This Court affirmed Family Court's determination upon appeal ( Matter of Stephanie RR. [Pedro RR.], 140 A.D.3d 1237, 32 N.Y.S.3d 700 [2016] ). The father, who is incarcerated, has made several challenges throughout the course of the ensuing permanency hearings. The child's placement with petitioner has been continued (see Matter of Kimberly RR. [Gloria RR. – Pedro RR.], 165 A.D.3d 1428, 87 N.Y.S.3d 348 [2018] ; Matter of Angel RR. [Gloria RR. – Pedro RR.], 152 A.D.3d 1010, 55 N.Y.S.3d 918 [2017] ; Matter of Angel RR. [Gloria RR.], 145 A.D.3d 1136, 41 N.Y.S.3d 439 [2016] ). In the most recent determination, this Court modified the order of protection — which had an expiration date of January 2022 — to expire in March 2016. The matter was then remitted to Family Court to render "an initial determination as to whether visitation serves the best interests of the children" ( Matter of Pedro A. v. Gloria A., 168 A.D.3d 1152, ––––, 91 N.Y.S.3d 588, 589 [2019] ).
The father requested visitation within the permanency hearing held in January 2018. Family Court denied his request and issued an order continuing the child's placement with petitioner. The father appeals, contending that Family Court erred in denying his request for visitation. We note that although Family Court very briefly addressed some of the factors related to best interests, the denial of visitation was ultimately based upon the then-existing order of protection, which was subsequently modified. Thus, the issue of visitation has not been fully or appropriately addressed at this juncture, and our prior decision specifically remitted for a hearing and determination of this issue. In light of these unusual procedural circumstances, the appeal must be dismissed as moot.
This appeal was perfected and presented during the pendency of our most recent determination.
--------
Egan Jr., Aarons, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.