IN RE: DESTINY F. (2023)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to article 10 of the Family Court Act, non-respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, continued the placement of the subject children with petitioner. The mother contends that Family Court erred in failing to conduct an age-appropriate consultation with the subject children as mandated by Family Court Act § 1089 (d), and that we should therefore remit the matter for the required consultation or direct the court to comply with section 1089 (d) at future permanency hearings (see Matter of Sandra DD. [Kenneth DD.], 185 A.D.3d 1259, 1262-1263, 128 N.Y.S.3d 666 [3d Dept. 2020]; Matter of Dawn M. [Michael M.], 151 A.D.3d 1489, 1492-1493 [3d Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 917, 2017 WL 4019216 [2017]).

We agree with petitioner and the attorney for the children (AFC), however, that the appeal is moot inasmuch as two subsequent permanency orders have been entered during the pendency of this appeal that continued the subject children's placement with petitioner and did not change the permanency goal of reunification with the mother (see Matter of Kimberly G. [Natasha G.], 203 A.D.3d 1418, 1419, 162 N.Y.S.3d 798 [3d Dept. 2022]; Matter of Gabrielle N.N. [Jacqueline N.T.], 171 A.D.3d 671, 672, 101 N.Y.S.3d 44 [1st Dept. 2019]; Matter of Francis S. [Wendy H.], 67 A.D.3d 1442, 1442, 887 N.Y.S.2d 899 [4th Dept. 2009], lv denied 14 N.Y.3d 702, 898 N.Y.S.2d 97, 925 N.E.2d 102 [2010]). We further agree with petitioner and the AFC that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714-715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 [1980]).