Permanency hearings are critical in child welfare cases, ensuring that children placed in the care of social services have stable and appropriate long-term plans. In Matter of Malazah W. and Malikah W., the Family Court addressed the permanency goal for two children removed from their mother’s care due to neglect. The mother appealed a February 2019 permanency hearing order, which continued the goal of reunification and the children’s placement with Westchester County’s Commissioner of Social Services (CSS).
Background Facts
Antoinette W., the mother of Malazah W. and Malikah W., consented to a finding of neglect without admission under Family Court Act Article 10. The children were placed in the custody of CSS. As part of the permanency planning process, a hearing was held in November 2018 to assess the children’s status and determine the appropriate permanency goal.
Following the hearing, on February 15, 2019, the Family Court issued an order continuing the goal of reunification with the mother and maintaining the children’s placement with CSS. However, before the appellate review of this order could be completed, another permanency hearing was held in June 2019. A subsequent order issued on October 15, 2019, upheld the same permanency goal and placement arrangement. The mother did not appeal the October 2019 order.
Question Before the Court
Whether the mother’s appeal of the February 2019 permanency hearing order was moot, given that a later order in October 2019 superseded the earlier one.
Court’s Decision
The appellate court dismissed the mother’s appeal as academic. The February 2019 order had been replaced by the October 2019 order, which also upheld the goal of reunification with the mother and the children’s placement with CSS. The court noted that any ruling on the February 2019 order would not have immediate or practical consequences, as the appealed order no longer governed the case.
Discussion
Permanency hearings are conducted under Family Court Act Article 10-A to review the status of children in foster care and ensure that appropriate long-term plans are in place. Goals may include reunification with the parent, placement with relatives, adoption, or another permanent solution. Courts must determine whether the responsible agency, such as CSS, has made reasonable efforts to achieve the stated goal.
In this case, the Family Court determined that CSS made reasonable efforts to work toward reunification. Despite the mother’s history of neglect, the court found that reunification remained a viable goal, and the children’s placement with CSS ensured their safety during the process. The court emphasized that appellate intervention is unwarranted when it cannot produce a practical outcome for the litigants.
The permanency goal of reunification reflects the legal and social priority of preserving family relationships when possible. However, reunification requires active engagement from parents to address the issues that led to the removal of their children. Agencies like CSS are tasked with providing support services to facilitate reunification, but they must also act in the best interests of the child.
In this case, the continuation of the reunification goal suggested that the mother demonstrated some level of progress or potential to regain custody. However, the fact that the children remained in foster care indicated ongoing concerns about their safety and well-being.
Conclusion
The Matter of Malazah W. and Malikah W. underscores the importance of permanency hearings in child welfare cases and highlights the procedural issues that can arise during appeals. If you are involved in a child welfare case or a related legal matter, it is important to seek experienced legal representation. Contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates to consult with a knowledgeable New York family lawyer who can guide you through the complexities of family law proceedings.