Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
In the MATTEROF A.K., Jr., a Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., A.B., Respondent–Appellant, v. Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner–Respondent, A.K.L., Respondent–Respondent.
Appeal from order, Family Court, New York County (Janet L. McFarland, J.), entered on or about February 13, 2025, which, after a permanency hearing, continued the subject child's placement in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services until the completion of the next permanency hearing on July 7, 2025, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.
Petitioner mother's appeal from Family Court's February 13, 2025 permanency hearing order has been rendered moot by the fact that the order appealed from was superseded by the February 21, 2025 order releasing the child to the mother's care (see Matter of Breeyanna S., 52 A.D.3d 342, 342, 861 N.Y.S.2d 615 [1st Dept. 2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 711, 872 N.Y.S.2d 73, 900 N.E.2d 556 [2008]; Matter of Jabarry W., 24 A.D.3d 218, 219, 804 N.Y.S.2d 922 [1st Dept. 2005], lv denied 6 N.Y.3d 711, 814 N.Y.S.2d 600, 847 N.E.2d 1173 [2006]). The mother received the very relief she would have received if her oral application during the February 11, 2025 permanency hearing for termination of the child's foster care placement and return to the mother's care and custody had been granted (see Matter of Javier R. [Robert R.], 43 A.D.3d 1, 3, 840 N.Y.S.2d 572 [1st Dept. 2007]).
Contrary to the contention of the mother and the attorney for the child, this matter does not warrant invoking an exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Kayla C. [Stephanie C.], 187 A.D.3d 434, 129 N.Y.S.3d 781 [1st Dept. 2020], lv dismissed 36 N.Y.3d 1073, 142 N.Y.S.3d 872, 166 N.E.3d 1050 [2021]). The record does not demonstrate that the issue raised below is likely to recur, or that it is sufficiently substantial or novel to warrant hearing the appeal despite its mootness (In the Matter of Joshua J. [Tameka J.], ––– N.Y.3d ––––, ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––––, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 03010, *3 [2025]). Moreover, the issue is not one that typically evades review because a respondent parent may seek expedited review of permanency orders under Family Court Act § 1121 (see id. at ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––––, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 03010 at *5 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Docket No: 5360
Decided: December 11, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)