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 RE: MARCEL S. and Others, Neglected Children. Columbia County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Julie V., Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Columbia County (Czajka, J.), entered March 9, 2004, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct. Act article 10, to extend the placement of respondent's children.
Respondent's four children were removed from her home in December 2002, and were adjudicated to be neglected by Family Court in May 2003 based upon her failure to adhere to an order of protection directing her to keep the children away from her then husband, a known sex offender. The children were placed in petitioner's custody and, in October 2003, petitioner filed a request for an extension of placement. Respondent consented to the extension for her two oldest children, but a hearing was held regarding the two younger children, Samantha T. (born in 1992) and Jordan U. (born in 1996). Family Court extended the placement as to Samantha and Jordan until December 16, 2004. Respondent appeals.
Since the order from which respondent appeals expired on December 16, 2004, this appeal is moot (see Matter of John I. [Lisa J.], 6 A.D.3d 991, 991, 775 N.Y.S.2d 602 [2004], lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 602, 782 N.Y.S.2d 405, 816 N.E.2d 195 [2004]; Matter of Jeran PP. [Joanne PP.], 6 A.D.3d 994, 995, 776 N.Y.S.2d 123 [2004]; Matter of Miguel HH. [Twila II.], 285 A.D.2d 692, 692, 727 N.Y.S.2d 348 [2001] ). Nevertheless, if the merits were properly before us, we would affirm. While Family Court noted that respondent was making progress, there was ample evidence in the record-including testimony from a psychologist who had met with the children-to support Family Court's determination that it was not yet in the best interests of Samantha and Jordan to return them to respondent's custody and petitioner had otherwise met its burden in the extension application (see Matter of William G. [Patricia G.], 233 A.D.2d 702, 704, 655 N.Y.S.2d 659 [1996] ).
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
LAHTINEN, J.
CREW III, J.P., PETERS, SPAIN and ROSE, JJ., concur.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 24, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third 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)