Matter of H.B. (J.A.)
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Matter of H.B. (J.A.)
2026 NY Slip Op 04365
July 9, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
In the Matter of H.B., Appellant, a Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., J.A., Respondent-Respondent, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent.
Decided and Entered: July 09, 2026
Docket No. NN09469/20|Appeal No. 7025|Case No. 2025-02221|
Before: Webber, J.P., Kennedy, Friedman, González, Shulman, JJ.
Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Hannah Kaplan of counsel), for appellant.
The Bronx Defenders, Bronx (Rebecca Suldan of counsel), for J.A., respondent.
Steven Banks, Corporation Counsel, New York (Lauren L. O'Brien of counsel), for Administration for Children Services, respondent.
Appeal from order, Family Court, Bronx County (Ashley B. Black, J.), entered on or about March 28, 2025, which granted petitioner agency's motion for an order regarding placement in a Qualified Residential Treatment Program (QRTP) to the extent of determining that the subject child's needs cannot be met through placement in a therapeutic foster home and that placement in a QRTP is the least restrictive environment, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.
Since the filing of this appeal, the Family Court terminated the appealed-from order, which granted the child's placement in the QRTP, and the child was returned to the maternal aunt's care on consent of the Attorney for the Child. Accordingly, this appeal is now moot and/or academic and the determination of which will not directly affect the rights of the parties (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]). "[T]he change in circumstances between the parties has eliminated the controversy that once existed" (Matter of Liu v Ruiz, 200 AD3d 68, 72 [1st Dept 2021], lv dismissed 38 NY3d 1124 [2022]).
Contrary to the AFC's contention, as well as the supporting arguments of respondent aunt, the narrow exception to the mootness doctrine is inapplicable (see Matter of Hearst Corp., 50 NY2d at 714-715; see also Matter of Joshua J. [Tameka J.], 44 NY3d 394, 403-405 [2025]). Family Court's finding that the child's needs could not be met through placement in a therapeutic foster home at the time of the order, after consideration of the requisite investigations, reports, and testimony, was a fact-specific determination and thus unlikely to recur (see Matter of Darcy M. [Gethylee C.], 195 AD3d 719, 720 [2d Dept 2021]). Family Court recognized that the subject child's placement and progress would be reviewed at each subsequent permanency hearing. Thus, the issues presented by the AFC would not typically evade review, and, in any event, they do not reflect substantial and novel issues (see Matter of Hearst Corp., 50 NY2d at 714-715).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: July 9, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Matter of H.B. (J.A.) (Matter of H.B. (J.A.)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.