In re Angel RR.
| Decision Date | 01 December 2016 |
| Citation | 145 A.D.3d 1136,41 N.Y.S.3d 439 (Mem),2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08138 |
| Parties | In the Matter of ANGEL RR. and Another, Neglected Children. Sullivan County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Gloria RR., Respondent. Pedro RR., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
145 A.D.3d 1136
41 N.Y.S.3d 439 (Mem)
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08138
In the Matter of ANGEL RR. and Another, Neglected Children.
Sullivan County Department of Social Services, Respondent;
Gloria RR., Respondent.
Pedro RR., Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Dec. 1, 2016.
Cliff Gordon, Monticello, for appellant.
Constantina Hart, Sullivan County Department of Social Services, Monticello, for Sullivan County Department of Social Services, respondent.
Hannah Rose Prall, Bloomingburgh, attorney for the children.
Before: McCARTHY, J.P., GARRY, LYNCH, DEVINE and CLARK, JJ.
LYNCH, J.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Sullivan County (McGuire, J.), entered December 3, 2015, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct. Act articles 10 and 10–A, continued the permanency plan for the subject children.
Pedro RR. (hereinafter the father) and respondent are the parents of two children born in 2002 and 2004 (hereinafter the subject children). In March 2015, Family Court determined that the father neglected four of his children, including the subject children, and issued an order of protection against the father.1 The subject children were placed outside of the home and, in December 2015, Family Court held a permanency hearing to reassess their placement. The father, who was and remains incarcerated, was provided notice of the permanency hearing and appeared via telephone as a nonrespondent parent (see Family Ct. Act § 1035[d] ). The father was represented by counsel who advised the father to not speak during the hearing. Despite this advice, the father said that he “just want[ed] to see [his] kids when [he got] out” of prison. The court responded, “I believe there's an order of protection in place that prevents you from seeing them for at least eight years after the maximum expiration of your sentence, so that's the way that is.” The father now appeals.
The father claims that he was denied his right to participate in the December 2015 permanency hearing and requests a new hearing. However, because...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alleged to Be Sullivan Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. RR (In re RR)
...This Court dismissed the appeal, finding that a subsequent permanency hearing rendered the appeal moot ( Matter of Angel RR. [Gloria RR.], 145 A.D.3d 1136, 41 N.Y.S.3d 439 [2016] ).In August 2017, another permanency hearing was held to reassess the child's continued placement. The father wa......
-
Sullivan Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Pedro RR. (In re Kimberly RR.), 526481
...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 169 ......
-
In re Angel RR.
...and we held, among other things, that he could not properly do so in that context (Matter of Angel RR. [Gloria RR.–Pedro RR.], 145 A.D.3d 1136, 1137–1138, 41 N.Y.S.3d 439 [2016] ). While that appeal was pending, another permanency hearing was held in May 2016 at which the father requested t......
- Yerkes v. Hardy