| Matter of Sasha M. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07204 [43 AD3d 1401] |
| September 28, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Sasha M., an Infant. Monroe County Department ofHuman and Health Services, Respondent; Tracy O., Appellant. (Appeal No.1.) |
—[*1] Daniel M. DeLaus, County Attorney, Rochester (Paul N. Humphrey of counsel), forpetitioner-respondent. Charles Plovanich, Law Guardian, Rochester, for Sasha M.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (John J. Rivoli, J.), enteredOctober 17, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order adjudgedthat the child is neglected and placed the child in the care and custody of petitioner until May 26,2006.
It is hereby ordered that said appeal from the order insofar as it concerned disposition be andthe same hereby is unanimously dismissed as moot (see Matter of Justice T., 305 AD2d1076 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 512 [2003]) and the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent is the mother of Sasha M., Emmanuel T.O. and Sean O., all ofwhom have been determined to be neglected children. We note at the outset that, with respect toappeal Nos. 3 and 4, respondent contends that Family Court erred in extending the placements ofEmmanuel and Sean. We dismiss those appeals as moot inasmuch as those orders have sinceexpired by their own terms (see Matter of Shaunna T., 225 AD2d 1060 [1996]), and weconclude that an exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply with respect to those appeals(cf. Matter of Kevin R., 251 AD2d 1022, 1023 [1998]). We note in any event thatrespondent's parental rights with respect to Emmanuel were terminated pending the appeal fromthe order extending his placement and that Sean is nearly at the age of majority. Thus, review ofthe orders in those appeals serves no practical purpose.
With respect to appeal No. 1, we conclude that the court properly determined that Sasha M.is a neglected child based upon the derivative evidence that respondent's three sons weredetermined to be neglected children (seeMatter of Amber C., 38 AD3d 538, 540 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 816 [2007];see generally Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]), including the evidence that respondenthad failed to address the mental health issues that led to those neglect determinations and theplacement of the custody of those children with petitioner (see Matter of Krystal J., 267AD2d [*2]1097 [1999]; Matter of Daequan FF., 243AD2d 922 [1997]). Furthermore, orders extending the placements of Emmanuel and Sean andterminating the parental rights of respondent with respect to another child were entered withinone month of the birth of Sasha, and thus "the prior finding[s were] so proximate in time to thederivative proceeding[ ] that it can reasonably be concluded that the condition still exist[ed]"(Matter of Hannah UU., 300 AD2d 942, 944 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 509[2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Amber C., 38 AD3d at 541).
With respect to appeal No. 2, we conclude that the court properly granted the motion ofpetitioner pursuant to Family Court Act § 1039-b seeking to be relieved of the requirementthat it make reasonable efforts to reunite Sasha with respondent. Petitioner established by clearand convincing evidence that respondent's parental rights with respect to Sasha's half sibling hadbeen involuntarily terminated (see § 1039-b [b] [6]), and that respondent had failedto cooperate with recommended treatment for mental health issues and had progressed onlyminimally in her parenting skills, despite her attendance at parenting programs and her visitationwith Sasha and Emmanuel. In response to that showing, respondent failed to establish thatrequiring petitioner to make reasonable efforts to reunite Sasha with her "would be in the bestinterests of the child, not contrary to the health and safety of the child, and would likely result inthe reunification of [respondent] and the child in the foreseeable future" (§ 1039-b [b];see also Matter of June S., 183 Misc 2d 679, 682 [2000]; see generally Matter ofMarino S., 100 NY2d 361, 372-373 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1059 [2003]).Present—Scudder, P.J., Gorski, Centra, Lunn and Peradotto, JJ.