In the Matter of ABIGAIL QQ., Alleged to be a Neglected Child. ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent; ANGELA F., Appellant. (And Another Related Proceeding.)
Calendar Date: November 16, 2016
Patnode, Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Cynthia
Feathers of counsel), for appellant.
D. Willer, St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services,
Canton, for respondent.
Reginald Bedell, Elizabethtown, attorney for the child.
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Rose, Clark and Aarons, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
(1) from an order of the Family Court of St. Lawrence County
(Morris, J.), entered July 27, 2015, which, among other
things, granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding
pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to extend the period of
petitioner's supervision of respondent, and (2) from an
order of said court, entered August 6, 2015, which dismissed
respondent's application to modify a prior order of
(hereinafter the mother) and her husband (hereinafter the
father) are the parents of a daughter (born in 2013). In
February 2013, petitioner commenced a derivative neglect
proceeding against the mother based upon, among other things,
2008 orders of neglect relating to the mother's three
other children and subsequent orders terminating her parental
rights to two of those other children . Upon consent, the
child was adjudicated to have been neglected by the mother.
Following a dispositional hearing, Family Court, among other
things, directed that the father continue to have custody of
the child, placed the mother and the father under
petitioner's supervision for a period of 12 months -
terminating on October 20, 2014 - and entered orders of
protection that prohibited the mother from having contact
with the child unless supervised by either petitioner or its
designee, which the father was expressly designated, and
prohibited the father from allowing the mother unsupervised
contact with the child. 
January 2014, the mother filed a petition seeking to modify
the order of supervision to allow her unsupervised visitation
with the child, and, beginning in June 2014, a combined
hearing was held on this application and other pending
petitions relating to three of the mother's other
children . During the pendency of the hearing,
petitioner applied for an extension of its period of
supervision over the mother and the father and, at an October
15, 2014 hearing date, Family Court took "notice"
of all the evidence that had been presented as of that date
and, despite the mother's objections, found that there
was good cause to extend petitioner's supervision
. In an order dated July 24, 2015 and
entered July 27, 2015, Family Court granted petitioner's
application and extended the period of supervision for 12
months, with such period of supervision dating back to the
October 15, 2014 hearing date so as to expire on October 14,
2015. The combined hearing continued through March 2015, at
which time the proof on all pending petitions was concluded.
On June 26, 2015, roughly 17 months after the mother had
filed her application for unsupervised contact with the
child, Family Court rendered a bench decision denying the
mother's application, and a written decision and order
was subsequently entered on August 6, 2015. The mother
appeals from the orders entered on July 27, 2015 and August
6, 2015. 
July 27, 2015 order extending the period of petitioner's
supervision expired by its own terms in October 2015 and has
been since superseded by subsequent orders extending
supervision and, thus, the mother's appeal from this
order must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Cheyenne
BB. [Kimberly CC.], 129 A.D.3d 1164, 1164 ;
Matter of Blaize F., 55 A.D.3d 974, 975 ). The
mother's appeal from the August 6, 2015 order is also
moot (see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,
50 N.Y.2d 707, 714 ). Family Court issued orders of
protection in March 2016 directing petitioner to, upon
satisfaction of certain conditions, take steps toward
allowing the mother unsupervised contact with the child
. Accordingly, the mother's appeal
from this order must also be dismissed.
Jr., J.P., Lynch, Rose and Aarons, JJ., concur.
that the appeals are dismissed, as moot, without costs.