Matter of Andrew L. (Cassi M.)

Matter of Andrew L. (Cassi M.) 2009 NY Slip Op 09569 [68 AD3d 1477] December 24, 2009 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 10, 2010

In the Matter of Andrew L. and Others, Neglected Children. Clinton County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Cassi M., Appellant.

—[*1] Diane Webster Brady, Plattsburgh, for appellant.

Michael J. Hartnett, Clinton County Department of Social Services, Plattsburgh, for respondent.

Omshanti Parnes, Law Guardian, Plattsburgh.

Lahtinen, J. Appeals from three orders of the Family Court of Clinton County (Lawliss, J.), entered December 24, 2008 which, among other things, granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10-A, to approve the permanency plan for respondent's daughters.

The underlying facts are set forth in our recent decision involving an earlier appeal by respondent (Matter of Andrew L., 64 AD3d 915 [2009]). The subject permanency plan orders provided for adoption as to respondent's son (respondent had voluntarily surrendered her parental rights as to him) and for reunification with regard to her two daughters. Since the voluntariness of the surrender with respect to respondent's son is not challenged, the appeal as to the order regarding him is moot (see Matter of Simeon F., 58 AD3d 1081, 1081 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 709 [2009]; Matter of Natasha F., 15 AD3d 788, 789 [2005]). The orders regarding the two daughters have now been replaced by a subsequent permanency plan and, accordingly, the appeals as to those orders are also moot (see Matter of Ariel FF., 63 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2009]; [*2]Matter of Haylee RR., 56 AD3d 968 [2008]). In any event, the orders on appeal regarding the daughters provide for reunification, which is the plan sought by respondent. We briefly note that respondent's argument regarding the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (see Social Services Law § 374-a)—a statute that could be relevant at some point in this proceeding since respondent currently resides in Vermont—was not preserved as it was not raised before Family Court (see Matter of Stephiana UU., 66 AD3d 1160, 1164 [2009]; Matter of Gordon L. v Michelle M., 296 AD2d 628, 630 [2002]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeals are dismissed, as moot, without costs.