IN RE: AMEENAH H. and others (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Schenectady County (Kevin Burke, J.), entered February 4, 2025, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act articles 10 and 10–A, continued the placement of the subject children.

Respondent (hereinafter the mother) is the mother of three children (born in 2018, 2019 and 2021).  In 2023, Family Court granted petitioner's emergency application to temporarily remove the children from the mother's custody.  Thereafter, the mother, based upon her prior admissions, consented to the finding of neglect and agreed to the dispositional orders that included the placement of the children in foster care.  At the next scheduled permanency planning hearing, the mother did not consent to the continued placement of the children, prompting an evidentiary hearing.  Following that hearing, Family Court issued a permanency order in February 2025 that continued the children's placement with petitioner through the next permanency planning hearing – scheduled for May 20, 2025 – and approved the permanency planning goal of returning the children to the mother.  The mother appeals.

The mother's appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of her assignment, asserting that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be pursued on appeal.  Following the mother's appeal from the February 2025 order, at least one subsequent permanency order was issued that continued the subject children's placement in foster care and continued the permanency planning goal of reunification with the mother.  As a result, we agree with the parties that the instant matter is moot (see Matter of Jayden G. [Debra F.], 246 A.D.3d 1269, 1270–1271, 252 N.Y.S.3d 815 [3d Dept 2026];  Matter of Kimberly G. [Natasha G.], 203 A.D.3d 1418, 1419, 162 N.Y.S.3d 798 [3d Dept 2022];  Matter of Jihad N. [Devine N.], 180 A.D.3d 1164, 1165, 119 N.Y.S.3d 607 [3d Dept 2020] ) and, upon our review of the record, we do not find that the mootness exception is applicable under the circumstances of this case (see Matter of Joshua J. [Tameka J.], 44 N.Y.3d 394, 404–405, 247 N.Y.S.3d 632, 273 N.E.3d 868 [2025];  Matter of Jayden G. [Debra F.], 246 A.D.3d at 1271, 252 N.Y.S.3d 815).  Therefore, we need not address counsel's application to be relieved of her assignment (see Matter of Iryanna I. [Benjamin K.], 133 A.D.3d 1048, 1049, 19 N.Y.S.3d 198 [3d Dept 2015];  Matter of Chelsea M. [Ernest M.], 68 A.D.3d 1489, 1490, 890 N.Y.S.2d 362 [3d Dept 2009] ).¹

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

FOOTNOTES

1.   We must reiterate that “it is indeed rare that an Anders brief will reflect effective advocacy in a contested case such as this where a trial or full evidentiary hearing has occurred” (Matter of Ulster County Support Collection Unit v. McManus, 168 A.D.3d 1325, 1326, 92 N.Y.S.3d 748 [3d Dept 2019] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted] ).

Pritzker, J.

Clark, J.P., Ceresia, Mackey and Corcoran, JJ., concur.