K.R. appealed a December 2020 order instituting permanency plans for his 4 children. His mother also appealed one of the permanency plans. They claimed that they were denied their due process right to meaningful participation in the plan review hearing. The court of appeals gives no specifics. Instead, it holds that because the permanency plans are no longer in effect, the appeal is moot. K.H. did not develop an argument for why the issue would recur and evade review. And she didn’t argue that the issue was of great public importance, until her reply brief.