Opinion
327 CAF 13-01091
03-27-2015
In the Matter of MARTHA S. and Mary S. Genesee County Department of Social Services, Petitioner–Respondent; Linda M.S., Respondent–Appellant.
Keliann M. Argy, Orchard Park, for Respondent–Appellant. Paula A. Campbell, Batavia, for Petitioner–Respondent. Paul B. Watkins, Attorney for the Children, Fairport.
Keliann M. Argy, Orchard Park, for Respondent–Appellant.
Paula A. Campbell, Batavia, for Petitioner–Respondent.
Paul B. Watkins, Attorney for the Children, Fairport.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, and WHALEN, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, found that the mother had neglected the subject children and placed the children in the custody of petitioner. The mother's challenge to the underlying neglect finding “is not reviewable on appeal because it was premised on [the mother's] admission of neglect and thereby made in an order entered on consent of the parties” (Matter of Carmella J., 254 A.D.2d 70, 70, 678 N.Y.S.2d 329 ; see Matter of Violette K. [Sheila E.K.], 96 A.D.3d 1499, 1499, 946 N.Y.S.2d 519 ; Matter of June MM., 62 A.D.3d 1216, 1217, 879 N.Y.S.2d 633, lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 704, 2009 WL 2871186 ). Because the mother never moved to vacate the neglect finding or to withdraw her consent to the order, her contention that her consent was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent is also not properly before us (see Family Ct. Act § 1051[f] ; Violette K., 96 A.D.3d at 1499, 946 N.Y.S.2d 519 ; June MM., 62 A.D.3d at 1217, 879 N.Y.S.2d 633 ; cf. Matter of Gabriella R., 68 A.D.3d 1487, 1487, 891 N.Y.S.2d 539 ). The mother's challenge to Family Court's removal of the children from her home pending a final order of disposition “has been rendered moot by the court's subsequent ... dispositional order” (Matter of Joseph E.K. [Lithia K.], 118 A.D.3d 1324, 1324, 987 N.Y.S.2d 760 ; see Matter of Anthony C. [Juan C.], 99 A.D.3d 798, 799, 951 N.Y.S.2d 884 ; Matter of Mary YY. [Albert YY.], 98 A.D.3d 1198, 1198, 950 N.Y.S.2d 918 ).
To the extent that the mother challenges the dispositional order, it is well established that “[t]he fashioning of an appropriate dispositional order is ordinarily a matter of discretion for ... Family Court and such an order will be reversed [only] where it lacks [a] ‘sound and substantial basis in the [record]’ ” (Matter of Kevin C., 288 A.D.2d 311, 312, 734 N.Y.S.2d 452 ; see Matter of Stefani C., 61 A.D.3d 681, 681, 876 N.Y.S.2d 501 ). Here, we conclude that “ ‘[t]he dispositional order ... reflect[s] a resolution consistent with the best interests of the children after consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, and [is] supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record’ ” (Matter of Elijah Q., 36 A.D.3d 974, 976, 828 N.Y.S.2d 607, lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 809, 834 N.Y.S.2d 507, 866 N.E.2d 453 ; see Matter of Gloria DD. [Brenda DD.], 99 A.D.3d 1044, 1045–1046, 952 N.Y.S.2d 785 ; Matter
of Alexis AA. [John AA.], 97 A.D.3d 927, 929–930, 948 N.Y.S.2d 709 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as it concerns the finding of neglect is unanimously dismissed and the order is otherwise affirmed without costs.