IN RE: H.B. (2026)

Appeal from order, Family Court, Bronx County (Ashley B. Black, J.), entered on or about March 28, 2025, which granted petitioner agency's motion for an order regarding placement in a Qualified Residential Treatment Program (QRTP) to the extent of determining that the subject child's needs cannot be met through placement in a therapeutic foster home and that placement in a QRTP is the least restrictive environment, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

Since the filing of this appeal, the Family Court terminated the appealed-from order, which granted the child's placement in the QRTP, and the child was returned to the maternal aunt's care on consent of the Attorney for the Child.  Accordingly, this appeal is now moot and/or academic and the determination of which will not directly affect the rights of the parties (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 [1980] ).  “[T]he change in circumstances between the parties has eliminated the controversy that once existed” (Matter of Liu v. Ruiz, 200 A.D.3d 68, 72, 158 N.Y.S.3d 25 [1st Dept 2021], lv dismissed 38 N.Y.3d 1124, 172 N.Y.S.3d 678, 192 N.E.3d 1157 [2022] ).

Contrary to the AFC's contention, as well as the supporting arguments of respondent aunt, the narrow exception to the mootness doctrine is inapplicable (see Matter of Hearst Corp., 50 N.Y.2d at 714–715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876;  see also Matter of Joshua J. [Tameka J.], 44 N.Y.3d 394, 403–405, 247 N.Y.S.3d 632, 273 N.E.3d 868 [2025] ).  Family Court's finding that the child's needs could not be met through placement in a therapeutic foster home at the time of the order, after consideration of the requisite investigations, reports, and testimony, was a fact-specific determination and thus unlikely to recur (see Matter of Darcy M. [Gethylee C.], 195 A.D.3d 719, 720, 145 N.Y.S.3d 389 [2d Dept 2021] ).  Family Court recognized that the subject child's placement and progress would be reviewed at each subsequent permanency hearing.  Thus, the issues presented by the AFC would not typically evade review, and, in any event, they do not reflect substantial and novel issues (see Matter of Hearst Corp., 50 N.Y.2d at 714–715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876).