Matter of Joshua J. (Tameka J.)
2025 NY Slip Op 03010
NY2025Background
- Westchester County Department of Social Services initiated neglect proceedings against Tameka J. in 2018 after incidents involving her minor children being left unsupervised.
- Tameka consented to a neglect finding, prompting several permanency hearings concerning the continued placement of two of her children in foster care.
- Family Court repeatedly continued the placement of Tameka's children with DSS, even as she petitioned for their return, and issued various orders requiring her to complete parenting and psychological programs.
- Tameka appealed the March 2022 and October 2022 permanency orders, both of which were superseded by subsequent orders while the appeals were pending.
- The Appellate Division dismissed the appeals as moot since new permanency orders replaced the ones under appeal and declined to apply a mootness exception.
- The primary question before the Court of Appeals was whether the Appellate Division abused its discretion by not invoking the mootness exception, and whether NY should adopt a blanket mootness exception for all expired permanency hearing orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tameka) | Defendant's Argument (DSS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are appeals of expired permanency orders moot? | Orders are not moot as their errors carry forward. | Expired orders are moot; subsequent orders supersede. | Appeals were moot; rights controlled by current order. |
| Should the mootness exception be applied to review these orders? | Exception should apply because issues recur & evade review. | Issues are not substantial or novel; no abuse of discretion in refusing exception. | Exception need not be applied; no abuse of discretion. |
| Should NY recognize a blanket mootness exception for all permanency hearings? | Blanket exception is necessary to make appeal rights meaningful due to hearing frequency. | Blanket exception would overwhelm courts, unnecessary, and contrary to purpose of permanency law. | Blanket exception unwarranted and imprudent. |
| Do Family Court referees have power to return children pre-disposition? | Referee's error is substantial, recurring, and evades review. | Not likely to recur, not sufficiently novel or systemic. | Not reviewable here; not likely to recur. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 NY2d 707 (NY 1980) (defining mootness and the exception for issues likely to recur and typically evading review)
- Matter of Jamie J., 30 NY3d 275 (NY 2017) (outlining constitutional and statutory parental rights in custody/foster care context)
- Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v. Pataki, 100 NY2d 801 (NY 2003) (clarifying when a controversy is moot and exception parameters)
- Matter of David C., 69 NY2d 796 (NY 1987) (rejecting a blanket mootness exception in related contexts)