Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-1416-11T1
10-15-2012
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES,1 Plaintiff-Respondent, v. A.V., Defendant-Appellant. IN THE MATTER OF A.C., a minor.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Alan I. Smith, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney for respondent New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Clinton Page, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor A.C. (Todd Wilson, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Koblitz and Accurso.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. FN-12-77-10.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Alan I. Smith, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney for respondent New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Clinton Page, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor A.C. (Todd Wilson, Designated Counsel, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant A.V., the mother of minor A.C., appeals from an October 5, 2011 order terminating the Title 9 abuse or neglect litigation after a Title 30 complaint seeking termination of parental rights was filed. A.V. contends that the July 5, 2011 permanency plan, which called for reunification, or alternatively, termination of parental rights, was contrary to her son's best interests. The Division of Youth and Family Services and the law guardian maintain that this issue is rendered moot by the filing of the termination complaint. See N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.P., 408 N.J. Super. 252, 255 (App. Div. 2009), cert. denied, 201 N.J. 153 (2010). In light of A.V.'s voluntary surrender of her parental rights on June 19, 2012, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
Although counsel has the continuing obligation to inform us of crucial information that goes to the viability of the appeal, neither attorney informed us of A.V.'s decision.
--------
As a general proposition, "[a]n issue is moot when the decision sought in a matter, when rendered, can have no practical effect on the existing controversy." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. J.C., 423 N.J. Super. 259, 263 (App. Div. 2011) (citations omitted). "However, an appeal will not be moot when a party still suffers from the adverse consequences . . . caused by [the prior] proceeding[.]" Ibid. (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). We will consider the merits of an issue notwithstanding its mootness if significant issues of public import appear. Joye v. Hunterdon Cent. Reg'l High Sch. Bd. of Educ, 176 N.J. 568, 583 (2003). No such issues are raised in this appeal.
Dismissed as moot.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION