Matter of Cecil T. N. (Kascha P.)

2025 NY Slip Op 02346 · Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department · April 23, 2025 · No. Docket No. N-11658-20

Summary

This uncorrected slip opinion from the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, addresses a mother's appeal from a Family Court order regarding child custody and placement under Article 10 of the Family Court Act. The court dismissed the appeal as academic because the challenged order had been superseded by a subsequent custody award to the child's paternal grandmother and the child had reached the age of eighteen. Consequently, the assigned counsel's motion for leave to withdraw under Anders v. California was also denied as academic.

Court
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Writing for the Court
HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J.; VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON; DEBORAH A. DOWLING; LOURDES M. VENTURA, JJ.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
April 23, 2025
Docket number
Docket No. N-11658-20
Procedural posture
Appeal from Family Court order; dismissed as academic.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Kascha P. (Anonymous) v. Administration for Children's Services
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

family law procedureappellate jurisdictionmootnessstandard of reviewfamily law

Practice areas

family law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the appeal is academic and should be dismissed
  2. Whether counsel may withdraw as counsel for the appellant

Holdings

  1. The appeal is dismissed as academic because the underlying Family Court order was superseded and the child is now 18, removing it from the custody provisions of the Family Court Act.
  2. Counsel’s application to withdraw as counsel for the appellant is denied as academic.

Key quotations

The mother's appeal from the order must be dismissed as academic, since that order was superseded by an order dated January 25, 2024, awarding custody of the subject child to the paternal grandmother (see Matter of Agam B., 143 AD3d 702, 702-703).
Furthermore, the child is now 18 years old and is no longer subject to the custody and parental access provisions of the order (see Family Ct Act § 119[c]; Matter of Skye H., 195 AD3d 711, 712-713).

Factual background

The mother sought to overturn a Family Court order that kept the child in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services. The child later turned 18 and custody was awarded to the paternal grandmother, making the original order moot.

Procedural history

The mother appealed an October 6, 2023 Family Court order continuing placement of the child in custody of the Commissioner of Social Services. The order was later superseded by a January 25, 2024 order awarding custody to the paternal grandmother, and the child turned 18, rendering the custody provisions moot. The appeal was dismissed as academic.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…