Opinion
2019–03086 Docket Nos. N-7277-17, N-7278-17
05-13-2020
In the MATTER OF MALAZAH W. (Anonymous), formerly known as Baby Girl W. (Anonymous). Westchester County Department of Social Services, respondent; v. Antoinette W. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Malikah W. (Anonymous), formerly known as Baby Boy W. (Anonymous). Westchester County Department of Social Services, respondent; v. Antoinette W. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 2)
Scott Stone, White Plains, NY, for appellant. John M. Nonna, County Attorney, White Plains, NY (Linda Trentacoste and Justin R. Adin of counsel), for respondent. Patrick J. Carle, New City, NY, attorney for the children.
Scott Stone, White Plains, NY, for appellant.
John M. Nonna, County Attorney, White Plains, NY (Linda Trentacoste and Justin R. Adin of counsel), for respondent.
Patrick J. Carle, New City, NY, attorney for the children.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from a permanency hearing order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Ronald H. Cohen, Ct. Atty. Ref.), entered February 15, 2019. The permanency hearing order, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, determined that the petitioner had made reasonable efforts to implement the permanency goal of reunification with the mother, continued the permanency goal of reunification, and continued the subject children's placement with the Commissioner of Social Services of Westchester County.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.
In these related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother consented to the entry of a finding of neglect without admission, and the children were placed in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of Westchester County (hereinafter CSS). Following a permanency hearing held on November 27, 2018, the Family Court issued a permanency hearing order entered February 15, 2019, which continued the permanency goal of reunification with the mother and the children's placement with the CSS. The next permanency hearing was held on June 6, 2019, and a subsequent permanency hearing order was entered on October 15, 2019, which continued the same permanency goal and the children's placement with the CSS. The mother appeals from the permanency hearing order entered February 15, 2019, but did not appeal from the permanency hearing order entered October 15, 2019.
The mother's appeal from the permanency hearing order entered February 15, 2019, must be dismissed as academic (see Elizabeth C. [Omar C.], 156 A.D.3d 193, 198, 66 N.Y.S.3d 300 ). That order did not change the permanency hearing goal of reunification with the mother, and has since been superseded by the permanency hearing order entered October 15, 2019, from which no appeal has been taken (see Matter of Peter T. [Shay S.P.], 173 A.D.3d 1043, 105 N.Y.S.3d 538 ; Matter of Victoria B. [Jonathan M.], 164 A.D.3d 578, 579, 82 N.Y.S.3d 504 ; Matter of Jayline J. [Jarren J.], 156 A.D.3d 701, 701–702, 64 N.Y.S.3d 916 ; Matter of Agam B. [Janna W.], 143 A.D.3d 702, 703, 38 N.Y.S.3d 591 ). Thus, a decision from this Court on the instant appeal would not " ‘result in immediate and practical consequences to the parties’ " ( Matter of Victoria B. [Jonathan M.], 164 A.D.3d at 580, 82 N.Y.S.3d 504, quoting Matter of Elizabeth C. [Omar C.], 156 A.D.3d at 198, 66 N.Y.S.3d 300 ).
MASTRO, J.P., HINDS–RADIX, MALTESE and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.