In re Gabriella RR.

• Decision Date: 11 May 2017
• Citation: 51 N.Y.S.3d 908 (Mem),150 A.D.3d 1427
• Parties: In the Matter of GABRIELLA RR. and Others, Alleged to be Neglected Children. Sullivan County Department of Family Services, Respondent; Tina SS., Appellant, et al., Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

150 A.D.3d 1427

51 N.Y.S.3d 908 (Mem)

In the Matter of GABRIELLA RR. and Others, Alleged to be Neglected Children.

Sullivan County Department of Family Services, Respondent;

Tina SS., Appellant, et al., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

May 11, 2017.

Jane M. Bloom, Monticello, for appellant.

Constantina Hart, Sullivan County Department of Social Services, Monticello, for Sullivan County Department of Family Services, respondent.

Howard Block, Kauneonga Lake, attorney for the children.

Brian Edwards, Monticello, attorney for the child.

Michael Ross, Bloomingburg, attorney for the child.

Before: GARRY, J.P., LYNCH, ROSE, CLARK and AARONS, JJ.

GARRY, J.P.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Sullivan County (McGuire, J.), entered January 12, 2016, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct. Act articles 10 and 10–A, extended the placement of the subject children.

Respondent Tina SS. (hereinafter the mother) is the mother of the four subject children (born in 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2014). The children were removed from the mother's care and, in September 2015, were adjudicated to be neglected. Following a permanency hearing in October 2015, Family Court approved petitioner's permanency plan to work towards reunification with the mother, to provide the mother certain supervised visitation, to continue the placement of the child born in 2011 with that child's biological father, and to continue the placement of the other children with the maternal great-grandmother. A permanency hearing order to that effect was entered in January 2016. A dispositional hearing was held in November 2015, and the order of disposition, entered in February 2016, continued the placement of the children as provided in the permanency plan, but increased visitation to the mother.¹ The mother appeals from the January 2016 permanency hearing order.²

Initially, as two subsequent permanency orders have been issued following the order appealed from, this appeal has been rendered moot (see Matter of Lauren L. [Cassi M.], 79 A.D.3d 1172, 1172, 911 N.Y.S.2d 678 [2010] ; Matter of Destiny HH., 63 A.D.3d 1230, 1231, 880 N.Y.S.2d 371 [2009], lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 706, 2009 WL 2959670 [2009] ; Matter of Ariel FF., 63 A.D.3d 1202, 1203, 879 N.Y.S.2d 350 [2009] ). With specific regard to the child born in 2011, the mother's appeal has also been rendered moot by a final order granting custody to the child's biological father in February 2016 (see Matter of Dezerea G. [Lisa G.], 97 A.D.3d 933, 935, 947 N.Y.S.2d 847 [2012] ; Matter of Jacob SS., 59 A.D.3d 825, 826, 874 N.Y.S.2d 591 [2009] ). To the extent that the mother presents due process challenges on the basis that she was absent from the permanency hearing (see Matter of Damian D. [Patricia WW.], 126 A.D.3d 12, 16 n. 3, 1 N.Y.S.3d 456 [2015] ; Matter of Telsa Z. [Denise Z.], 84 A.D.3d 1599, 1600 n. 2, 923 N.Y.S.2d 768 [2011], lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 708, 2011 WL 4027433 [2011] ), we find no merit in her allegations, as she was represented by counsel who actively participated in the proceedings and did not request an adjournment (see Matter of Paige WW. [Charles XX.], 71 A.D.3d 1200, 1205, 895 N.Y.S.2d 603 [2010] ; Matter of Curtis N., 288 A.D.2d 774, 775–776, 733 N.Y.S.2d 747 [2001], lv. denied 97...