Schenectady Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Simone J. (In re Rahsaan I.)

202 A.D.3d 1401

159 N.Y.S.3d 923 (Mem)

In the MATTER OF RAHSAAN I., Alleged to be the Child of a Mentally Ill Parent.

Schenectady County Department of Social Services, Respondent;

v.Simone J., Appellant.

532319

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

Calendar Date: January 6, 2022

Decided and Entered: February 24, 2022

Paul J. Connolly, Delmar, for appellant.

Christopher H. Gardner, County Attorney, Schenectady (Nadia C. Viscusi–Stanners of counsel), for respondent.

Lawrence E. Becker, Albany, attorney for the child.

Before: Garry, P.J., Clark, Aarons and Colangelo, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Colangelo, J. Appeals from a decision of the Family Court of Schenectady County (Polk, J.), dated August 10, 2020, and an order of said court, entered February 4, 2021, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act articles 10 and 10–A, continued the permanency goal of placement for adoption of respondent's child.

Respondent is the mother of the subject child (born in 2010), who has been in petitioner's custody since March 2016, when petitioner filed a neglect petition against respondent because she was in a psychotic state. In August 2017, petitioner commenced a proceeding to terminate respondent's parental rights, alleging that she suffered a mental illness that prevented her at that time and for the foreseeable future from being able to adequately care for the child. After a hearing, Family Court granted the petition and terminated respondent's parental rights. Respondent appealed and this Court reversed, concluding that Family Court erred in proceeding on the petition without the statutorily-required psychological evaluation of respondent (see Social Services Law § 384–b [6][e] ); the matter was remitted for a new hearing ( Matter of Rahsaan I. [Simone J.], 180 A.D.3d 1162, 119 N.Y.S.3d 609 [2020] ). Thereafter, a permanency hearing was held, after which Family Court, by order entered February 4, 2021, extended the child's placement with petitioner and approved the continuation of the permanency goal of adoption. Respondent appeals.¹

Respondent's appeal from Family Court's February 2021 permanency order, which did change the prior permanency goal, has been rendered moot by the issuance of three subsequent permanency orders that continued the child's placement with petitioner and also did not change or modify the permanency goal of adoption (see Matter of Jihad N. [Devine N.], 180 A.D.3d 1164, 1165, 119 N.Y.S.3d 607 [2020] ; compare Matter of Isayah R. [Shaye R.], 189 A.D.3d 1942, 1943, 137 N.Y.S.3d 588 [2020] ). This Court was also advised at oral argument that there has been an additional extension, with the same terms and conditions. Under the circumstances that exist here, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see Matter of Cheyeanne E [Scott E], 154 A.D.3d 1206, 1207, 63 N.Y.S.3d 585 [2017] ). Accordingly, the appeal from the February 2021 order is dismissed as moot.

Garry, P.J., Cl...