IN RE: ANGEL L.E. (Anonymous) II (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the subject children appeal from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Tracy C. MacKenzie, J.), dated January 26, 2024.  The order, after a hearing, denied the father's petition to modify an order of the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey entered November 19, 2019, made on consent of the parties, so as to award the father residential custody of the children and final decision-making authority, with certain parental access to the mother.

ORDERED that the appeal by the subject child Angel L.E. III is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as academic, and because he is not aggrieved by the order appealed from (see CPLR 5511);  and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated January 26, 2024, is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the subject child Miko A. E., without costs and disbursements.

The parties are the parents of two children, Angel L.E. III (hereinafter the older child), born in 2007, and Miko A.E. (hereinafter the younger child), born in 2010.  Pursuant to an order of the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey entered November 19, 2019, made on consent of the parties, the parties were awarded joint legal custody of the children, with residential custody to the mother and parental access to the father (hereinafter the custody order).  In June 2023, the father filed a petition to modify the custody order so as to award him residential custody of the children and final decision-making authority, with certain parental access to the mother.  In an order dated January 26, 2024, after a hearing, the Family Court denied the father's petition.  The subject children appeal.

Since the older child has turned 18 years of age, he is no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the Family Court over issues of custody and parental access (see Matter of Johnson v. Schreurs, 177 A.D.3d 742, 743, 110 N.Y.S.3d 318).  Moreover, the older child is not aggrieved by the order dated January 26, 2024, since he received the outcome that he sought at the hearing (see CPLR 5511;  Matter of Denise V.E.J. [Latonia J.], 163 A.D.3d 667, 669, 82 N.Y.S.3d 140).  Accordingly, the older child's appeal must be dismissed.

Contrary to the younger child's contention, under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in failing to appoint separate attorneys for the children (see Matter of Oliver A. [Oguis A.-D.], 167 A.D.3d 867, 869, 90 N.Y.S.3d 142).

BARROS, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.