Matter of Andrew L. (Cassi M.)

2009 NY Slip Op 09569 [68 AD3d 1477]

December 24, 2009

Appellate Division, Third Department

As corrected through Wednesday, February 10, 2010

In the Matter of Andrew L. and Others, Neglected Children.Clinton County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Cassi M.,Appellant.

—[*1]Diane Webster Brady, Plattsburgh, for appellant.

Michael J. Hartnett, Clinton County Department of Social Services, Plattsburgh, forrespondent.

Omshanti Parnes, Law Guardian, Plattsburgh.

Lahtinen, J. Appeals from three orders of the Family Court of Clinton County (Lawliss, J.),entered December 24, 2008 which, among other things, granted petitioner's application, in aproceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10-A, to approve the permanency plan forrespondent's daughters.

The underlying facts are set forth in our recent decision involving an earlier appeal byrespondent (Matter of Andrew L., 64 AD3d 915 [2009]). The subject permanency planorders provided for adoption as to respondent's son (respondent had voluntarily surrendered herparental rights as to him) and for reunification with regard to her two daughters. Since thevoluntariness of the surrender with respect to respondent's son is not challenged, the appeal as tothe order regarding him is moot (see Matter of Simeon F., 58 AD3d 1081, 1081 [2009],lv denied 12 NY3d 709 [2009]; Matter of Natasha F., 15 AD3d 788, 789 [2005]).The orders regarding the two daughters have now been replaced by a subsequent permanencyplan and, accordingly, the appeals as to those orders are also moot (see Matter of ArielFF., 63 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2009]; [*2]Matter of HayleeRR., 56 AD3d 968 [2008]). In any event, the orders on appeal regarding the daughtersprovide for reunification, which is the plan sought by respondent. We briefly note thatrespondent's argument regarding the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children(see Social Services Law § 374-a)—a statute that could be relevant at somepoint in this proceeding since respondent currently resides in Vermont—was not preservedas it was not raised before Family Court (see Matter of Stephiana UU., 66 AD3d 1160,1164 [2009]; Matter of Gordon L. v Michelle M., 296 AD2d 628, 630 [2002]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeals aredismissed, as moot, without costs.