Child protective proceedings; Removal order; Mootness; Gleason v Kincaid; Collateral legal consequences; In re Detmer/Beaudry

The court held that respondent’s appeal from the order removing her children from her care and custody was moot. Respondent appealed after the trial court removed her four children from her care following a continued preliminary hearing. While the appeal was pending, three children were returned to respondent’s care, and the remaining child turned 18 after the removal order. On appeal, the court first noted that mootness is “a threshold question” that must be addressed before the merits, and that “[a]n issue is moot when a subsequent event makes it impossible” to grant relief. Relying on Detmer/Beaudry, the court recognized that mootness has exceptions, including when an adverse judgment may have “collateral legal consequences” or when the case presents “an issue of public significance” likely to recur yet evade review. But the court held that no exception applied because the children had either returned home or aged out, leaving the court unable to give respondent the requested remedy. The court also noted that she had been invited to file supplemental briefing on mootness but provided no applicable exception. Dismissed.