| Matter of Chelsea M. (Ernest M.) |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09575 [68 AD3d 1489] |
| December 24, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Chelsea M. and Another, Neglected Children.Clinton County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Ernest M. et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Elena Jaffe Tastensen, Saratoga Springs, for Michelle M., appellant. John Dee, Clinton County Department of Social Services, Plattsburgh, for respondent. Omshanti Parnes, Law Guardian, Plattsburgh.
Mercure, J. Appeals (1) from two orders of the Family Court of Clinton County (Lawliss, J.),entered February 19, 2009, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant toFamily Ct Act article 10-A, to, among other things, terminate previous orders of placement, and(2) from two orders of protection issued thereon.
Respondents are the parents of the subject children (born in 1993 and 1996). The underlyingfacts are more fully set forth in a previous decision of this Court affirming a determination thatthe mother had neglected the children (Matter of Chelsea M., 61 AD3d 1030 [2009]).Among other things, this Court affirmed Family Court's placement of the children with theiradult sister (id. at 1031-1032). Thereafter, the parties appeared before Family Court for apermanency hearing, following which the court issued orders for each child continuing thatplacement and changing the permanency goal for each to permanent placement with their sister.Respondents appeal from those orders, as well as accompanying orders of protection issuedagainst them.[*2]
The appeals must be dismissed. As the orders ofprotection have expired by their own terms, respondents' appeals therefrom are moot (seeMatter of Destiny HH., 63 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 706[2009]). Moreover, while this appeal was pending, respondents consented to an order awardingcustody of the children to their sister in a separate custody proceeding. Contrary to the argumentsof respondent Ernest M., the father, the ensuing consent order has rendered the appeals from thepermanency hearing orders moot, and we perceive no basis upon which to reach any issuestherefrom (see Matter of Jacob SS., 59 AD3d 825, 826 [2009]; Matter of StephaniFF., 296 AD2d 606, 608 [2002]).
As the appeals are moot, we need not address the application by counsel for respondentMichelle M. to be relieved of her assignment (see Matter of Christopher A., 66 AD3d1066 [2009]).
Cardona, P.J., Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeals are dismissed,as moot, without costs.