IN RE: PETER GG. and Others (2007)

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Columbia County (Czajka, J.), entered May 4, 2005, which, inter alia, granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct. Act article 10, to extend the placement of respondent's children.

 Respondent's three children were previously adjudicated as neglected children and placed in the custody of petitioner.   The present appeal is from an order which extended their placement until May 15, 2005, rendering this appeal moot (see Matter of Marcel S. [Julie V.], 15 A.D.3d 808, 809, 790 N.Y.S.2d 263 [2005];  Matter of Thomas JJ. [Shirley KK.], 14 A.D.3d 953, 954-955, 788 N.Y.S.2d 508 [2005];  Matter of Miguel HH. [Twila II.], 285 A.D.2d 692, 692-693, 727 N.Y.S.2d 348 [2001] ).   Respondent's present argument-that Family Court's finding that he is mildly mentally retarded constitutes a permanent and significant stigma which might indirectly affect his status in any future termination proceeding-is not sufficient to invoke an exception to the mootness doctrine (see 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] ).   In such a proceeding, this issue is reviewable because clear and convincing evidence must establish both mental retardation and that such condition, presently or for the foreseeable future, renders the individual unable to provide proper and adequate care for the child in question (see Matter of Adam NN. [Jennifer NN.], 33 A.D.3d 1187, 1188, 822 N.Y.S.2d 673 [2006];  Matter of Henry W. [Henry MM.], 31 A.D.3d 940, 941-942, 818 N.Y.S.2d 348 [2006], lvs. denied 7 N.Y.3d 711, 823 N.Y.S.2d 771, 857 N.E.2d 66 [2006];  Matter of Melissa LL. [Linda LL.], 30 A.D.3d 705, 707, 817 N.Y.S.2d 407 [2006], lvs. denied 7 N.Y.3d 710, 822 N.Y.S.2d 758, 855 N.E.2d 1173 [2006] ).   Notably, a previous proceeding seeking to terminate respondent's parental rights was dismissed because the evidence failed to appropriately establish that respondent could not adequately address his mental retardation as it pertained to the care of his children (Matter of Peter GG. [Eva GG.], 33 A.D.3d 1104, 1104 n., 822 N.Y.S.2d 668 [2006] ).

 Lastly, respondent's attempt to challenge Family Court's determination that he violated the order of supervision is not properly before us as no appeal was taken from that order (see CPLR 5515[1];  see also Symbax, Inc. v. Bingaman, 219 A.D.2d 552, 554, 631 N.Y.S.2d 829 [1995] ).   Moreover, that order expired May 4, 2006, and is also moot.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

MUGGLIN, J.

CARDONA, P.J., MERCURE, CREW III and LAHTINEN, JJ., concur.