| Matter of Olivia SS. (William TT.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06026 [75 AD3d 800] |
| July 8, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Olivia SS. and Another, Neglected Children.Clinton County Department of Social Services, Respondent; William TT., Appellant. (AndAnother Related Proceeding.) |
—[*1] Michael J. Hartnett, Clinton County Department of Social Services, Plattsburgh, forrespondent. Aaron Turetsky, Keeseville, attorney for the children.
Garry, J. Appeals (1) from two orders of the Family Court of Clinton County (Lawliss, J.),entered October 27, 2009, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant toFamily Ct Act article 10-A, to extend the placement of the subject children, (2) from two ordersof said court, entered October 27, 2009, which, among other things, granted petitioner'sapplications, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, for orders of protection,(3) from two orders of said court, entered December 14, 2009, which, in two proceedingspursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, modified prior orders of protection, and (4) from an orderof said court, entered December 14, 2009, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Actarticle 10, among other things, modified visitation.
Respondent William TT. (hereinafter respondent) and respondent Jacqueline SS. (hereinafterthe mother) are the parents of a son (born in 2003). The mother also has a daughter (born in2001) for whom paternity has not been established, but who resided with respondent, the motherand their son for years and who views respondent as her father. In April 2008, petitionercommenced neglect proceedings with respect to both children against respondent and themother. The children were removed from their care and placed with petitioner in the care of anadult sibling. Thereafter, respondent consented to a finding that he had neglected the childrenand placement was continued. Following subsequent permanency hearings, which resulted incontinued placement and one eight-hour unsupervised visit each week between respondents andthe children, the present permanency hearing was conducted in October 2009. Permanencyhearing orders were then issued by Family Court which, among other things, left placement andvisitation unchanged. Respondent appeals from these orders and the orders of protection enteredin conjunction therewith.
The mother then failed multiple drug tests in late October 2009, and petitioner consequentlymoved by order to show cause to modify visitation by requiring that it be supervised. A hearingon the motion was held in December 2009, following which Family Court issued an orderrequiring that respondent's and the mother's visitation with the children be supervised.Respondent appeals from this order and the modified orders of protection entered in conjunctiontherewith.
The present appeals are moot. The orders and modified orders of protection either weresuperceded or have expired on their own terms (see Matter of Destiny HH., 63 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2009], lvdenied 13 NY3d 706 [2009]). As to the permanency hearing orders, in May 2010 FamilyCourt issued subsequent orders which, among other things, returned respondent's son to him andconcluded that it was without legal authority to return the daughter to respondent because he isnot her biological father and "has never had legal custody of [her]." Without reaching anyopinion as to the merits, we find that these subsequent orders render the appeals from the priorpermanency orders moot because respondent's rights will no longer be directly affected bydetermination of the present appeals (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707,714 [1980]; Matter of Destiny HH., 63 AD3d at 1231; Matter of Brenden O., 13 AD3d779, 779-780 [2004]).
Finally, although Family Court's conclusion that respondent's use of methadone byprescription to treat his chronic pain affected his ability to care for the children lacked a soundand substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Blaize F., 74 AD3d 1454, 1455 [2010]),respondent's appeal from the December 2009 order is now moot. Family Court essentiallyreversed the prior finding in the May 2010 order concerning respondent's son, finding that "thereis insufficient evidence to find that [respondent]'s methadone intake interferes with his ability tocare for the subject child." In light of this subsequent determination, our review will no longerhave a direct effect on respondent's rights, and we therefore dismiss respondent's appeal fromthis order.
Mercure, J.P., Malone Jr., Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeals aredismissed, as moot, without costs.