IN RE: BABY GIRL M. and Others (2025)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

IN RE: BABY GIRL M. and Others, Children Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Cintrea M., Respondent–Appellant, v. Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
IN RE: Derrick A., Petitioner–Respondent, v. Cintrea M., Respondent–Appellant.

4293-, 4293A-, 4293B

Decided: May 06, 2025

Webber, J.P., Moulton, González, Pitt–Burke, Higgitt, JJ.

Larry Bachner, New York, for appellant. Muriel Goode–Trufant, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for Administration for Children's Services, respondent. Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem, New York (Michael Weinstein of counsel), for Derrick A., respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the children.

Appeal from orders, Family Court, Bronx County (Ashley B. Black, J.), entered on or about December 6, 2022, which temporarily removed the subject children from respondent mother and placed them in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot. Appeal from order, same court and Judge, entered on or about September 11, 2023, which, upon the mother's default, awarded final custody of the subject children to petitioner father, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

Upon review of the record, we agree with the mother's assigned counsel that the mother's appeal from the temporary removal orders is rendered moot by the fact that the orders expired and were superseded by subsequent orders, which temporarily released the children to the father under ACS supervision, then released the children to the father without further ACS supervision, and then awarded the father final custody of the children (see Matter of T.R. [Jaquasia G.], 227 A.D.3d 530, 211 N.Y.S.3d 325 [1st Dept. 2024]; Matter of Crystal G. v. Marquis E., 170 A.D.3d 557, 557–558, 94 N.Y.S.3d 841 [1st Dept. 2019]).

We also agree that the final custody order is nonappealable, as it was entered upon the mother's default at the fact-finding hearing (see Matter of Aminata S. v. Ndongo D., 230 A.D.3d 1078, 217 N.Y.S.3d 71 [1st Dept. 2024]). Although the mother moved to vacate the default, she did not appeal from the order denying her motion.

As this Court has determined that the mothers’ appeals are moot or taken from a nonappealable order, the application by the mother's assigned counsel to withdraw is granted. As such, we do not reach the issue raised by counsel pertaining to the existence of nonfrivolous issues that could be raised on appeal (see Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 [1967]), and instead sua sponte relieve counsel from representation of the mother, as his representation on this appeal has been rendered moot by virtue of this order.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network