IN RE: RAYMOND R. (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Calendar Date:  August 19, 2026

(1) Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Albany County (Amy Joyce, J.), entered April 7, 2025, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, approved the placement of the subject child in a qualified residential treatment program, and (2) motion to, among other things, compel production of the subject child for a meeting with the attorney for the child.

Respondent (hereinafter the father) is the father of the subject child (born in 2008).  In April 2024, the subject child and several others were removed from the father's care on an emergency basis and placed in the protective custody of petitioner (see Family Ct Act § 1024).  Shortly thereafter, an abuse petition was filed against the father and the temporary removal of the children was continued.  Petitioner initially placed the subject child in the care of his paternal aunt, but, after behavioral issues made a placement in that or any other foster home unsustainable, placed him in a qualified residential treatment program (hereinafter QRTP) and sought an order approving the placement pursuant to Family Ct Act § 1055–c.  Family Court approved that placement in August 2024, as well as one in a different facility in November 2024.  Petitioner then sought approval for a QRTP placement in a third facility and, following a hearing, Family Court granted that relief in April 2025.  The father appeals from the April 2025 order.

The parties advise us that, during the pendency of this appeal, the subject child was discharged from the QRTP placement to the custody of his mother and has turned 18 years of age.  Those developments render the appeal moot, and we do not find the narrow exception to the mootness doctrine to be applicable (see Matter of William M. v Tompkins County Dept. of Social Servs., 81 AD3d 1186, 1187 [3d Dept 2011];  Matter of Alexander K. [Jennifer N.], 77 AD3d 1023, 1024 [3d Dept 2010];  Matter of Shontae R., 48 AD3d 1006, 1006 [3d Dept 2008] ).  As the appeal must therefore be dismissed, we need not consider the application of counsel for the father to be relieved of her assignment upon the ground that no nonfrivolous appellate issues exist (see Matter of Alexander K. [Jennifer N.], 77 AD3d at 1024).  In view of the foregoing, the separate motion of the attorney for the child to, among other things, compel production of the subject child for a meeting regarding this appeal is denied as academic (see e.g. Matter of City of Ithaca v New York State Dept. of Envtl.  Conservation, 188 AD3d 1322, 1324 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 37 NY3d 906 [2021] ).

Garry, P.J., Powers, Corcoran and Ryba, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the motion is denied, as academic, without costs.

Fisher, J.