| Matter of Bayley W. (Jaden W.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 07914 [100 AD3d 1203] |
| November 21, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Bayley W. and Another, Permanently NeglectedChildren. Delaware County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Jaden W.,Appellant. |
—[*1] D. Jeremy Rase, Delaware County Department of Social Services, Delhi, for respondent. Larisa Obolensky, Delhi, attorney for the children.
Lahtinen, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Delaware County (Becker, J.),entered September 29, 2011, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law §384-b, denied respondent's motion to withdraw her prior admission of permanent neglect.
Respondent, the mother of two children (born in 2007 and 2008), stipulated in June 2011 thatshe had permanently neglected her children and consented to a one-year suspended judgment.Shortly thereafter, petitioner moved for an order revoking the suspended judgment andterminating respondent's parental rights, but Family Court denied the motion. In August 2011,respondent moved to withdraw her admission of permanent neglect. Family Court denied themotion and respondent appeals.
Initially, we are unpersuaded by the attorney for the child's argument that the appeal is nowmoot since respondent executed judicial surrenders of her parental rights in April 2012. A [*2]judicial surrender renders moot an appeal from many Family Courtproceedings (see e.g. Matter of RandiNN. [Randi MM.—Joseph MM.], 80 AD3d 1086, 1086-1087 [2011], lvdenied 16 NY3d 712 [2011]; Matterof Jacelyn TT. [Tonia TT.—Carlton TT.], 80 AD3d 1119, 1119-1120 [2011]).However, we have recognized an exception to mootness when, as here, a parent is challenging adetermination that implicates permanent neglect, since such a determination creates a stigma andmay adversely affect the parent in future proceedings (see e.g. Matter of Armani KK. [Deborah KK.], 81 AD3d 1001,1002 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 711 [2011]; Matter of Mahogany Z. [Wayne O.], 72 AD3d 1171, 1172 [2010],lv denied 14 NY3d 714 [2010]).
Although the appeal is not moot, we find no merit in respondent's argument that FamilyCourt erred in denying her motion without a hearing. Respondent's motion was supported by onlyher unsworn letter and a cursory affirmation from her attorney. Her primary contention was thatpetitioner misled or deceived her because it sought to revoke the suspended judgment less than amonth after it was entered. This contention is totally speculative and undermined by proof of heralmost immediate failure to comply with conditions in the judgment. Moreover, there is nocompetent evidence indicating that she did not willingly and knowingly stipulate to neglect, andthere is no indication that her factual admissions regarding neglect were involuntarily given.Under the circumstances, Family Court properly denied respondent's motion (see Matter ofBilly Jean II., 228 AD2d 716, 717 [1996]).
Peters, P.J., Kavanagh, Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.