State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: December 1, 2016 522404 

________________________________

In the Matter of ANGEL RR.

and Another, Neglected

Children.

SULLIVAN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

SOCIAL SERVICES, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Respondent;

GLORIA RR.,

Respondent.

PEDRO RR.,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: October 14, 2016

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Lynch, Devine and Clark, JJ.

__________

Cliff Gordon, Monticello, for appellant.

Constantina Hart, Sullivan County Department of Social

Services, Monticello, for Sullivan County Department of Social

Services, respondent.

Hannah Rose Prall, Bloomingburgh, attorney for the

children.

__________

Lynch, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Sullivan County

(McGuire, J.), entered December 3, 2015, which, in a proceeding

pursuant to Family Ct Act articles 10 and 10-A, continued the

permanency plan for the subject children.
-2- 522404 

Pedro RR. (hereinafter the father) and respondent are the

parents of two children born in 2002 and 2004 (hereinafter the

subject children). In March 2015, Family Court determined that

the father neglected four of his children, including the subject

children, and issued an order of protection against the father.1

The subject children were placed outside of the home and, in

December 2015, Family Court held a permanency hearing to reassess

their placement. The father, who was and remains incarcerated,

was provided notice of the permanency hearing and appeared via

telephone as a nonrespondent parent (see Family Ct Act § 1035

[d]). The father was represented by counsel who advised the

father to not speak during the hearing. Despite this advice, the

father said that he "just want[ed] to see [his] kids when [he

got] out" of prison. The court responded, "I believe there's an

order of protection in place that prevents you from seeing them

for at least eight years after the maximum expiration of your

sentence, so that's the way that is." The father now appeals. 

The father claims that he was denied his right to

participate in the December 2015 permanency hearing and requests

a new hearing. However, because the father appeared at a

subsequent permanency hearing in May 2016 and, thus, has received

the relief he now requests, we dismiss the appeal as moot (see

Matter of Little v Little, 107 AD3d 1065, 1066 [2013]; Matter of

Dye v Bernier, 104 AD3d 1102, 1102 [2013]). In any event, a

nonrespondent parent "has a limited statutory role and narrow

rights under Family Ct Act § 1035 (d) to: (1) pursue temporary

custody of his or her child/children during fact-finding, and (2)

seek permanent custody during the dispositional phase" (Matter of

Telsa Z. [Rickey Z.–Denise Z.], 71 AD3d 1246, 1251 [2010]). 

Contrary to the father's argument on appeal, the record confirms

that the father received the requisite notice of the December

2015 permanency hearing (see Family Ct Act § 1089 [b] [i]; 12

NYCRR 205.17 [c]; Matter of Telsa Z. [Rickey Z.–Denise Z.], 71

AD3d at 1250-1251) and, in view of his extended incarceration, he

was in no position to pursue custody. Further, he cannot

1 This Court affirmed Family Court's finding in June 2016

(Matter of Stephanie RR. [Pedro RR.], 140 AD3d 1237, 1238

[2016]). 
-3- 522404 

challenge the order of protection within the permanency hearing

(see Family Ct Act § 1061; Matter of Anderson v Anderson, 9 AD3d

619, 620 [2004]; Matter of Matthew W. v Sandra W., 291 AD2d 693,

694 [2002]). 

McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs. 

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court