Matter of Daniel H. (Natasha G.)

212 A.D.3d 896, 179 N.Y.S.3d 629, 2023 NY Slip Op 00007

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: January 5, 2023
• Docket: 532727
• Status: Published

Opinion

Matter of Daniel H. (Natasha G.) (2023 NY Slip Op 00007)

Matter of Daniel H. (Natasha G.)

2023 NY Slip Op 00007

Decided on January 5, 2023

Appellate Division, Third Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered:January 5, 2023

532727

[*1]In the Matter of Daniel H. and Others, Neglected Children. St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Natasha G., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (And Other Related Proceedings.)

Calendar Date:November 15, 2022
Before:Aarons, J.P., Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia and Fisher, JJ.

Rural Law Center of New York, Inc., Castleton (Kristin A. Bluvas of counsel), for appellant.

Stephen D. Button, County Attorney, Canton (Keith S. Massey Jr. of counsel), for respondent.

Cheryl L. Maxwell, Plattsburgh, attorney for the children.

Aarons, J.P.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of St. Lawrence County (Cecily L. Morris, J.), entered December 3, 2020, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, denied respondent Natasha G.'s motion to modify prior orders.

Respondent Natasha G. (hereinafter respondent) is the mother of six children (born in 2004, 2005, 2011, 2015, 2016 and 2019). In 2019, respondent and the children's father consented to petitioner having temporary custody of the children. As relevant here, visitation was suspended between respondent and one of her children. Respondent thereafter moved for, among other things, the reinstatement of visitation with the subject child. Following a hearing, Family Court, in 2020, denied the motion. Respondent appeals.

The parties have advised this Court that, in February 2022, respondent judicially surrendered her parental rights to all six children. In view of this, respondent's appeal is moot (see Matter of Alexus SS. [Chezzy SS.], 130 AD3d 1266, 1267 [3d Dept 2015]). Because the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see Matter of Norbert YY., 28 AD3d 815, 816 [3d Dept 2006]; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]), the appeal must be dismissed.

Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia and Fisher, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.