| Matter of Christopher J. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02170 [60 AD3d 1402] |
| March 20, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Christopher J., III, and Another, Infants. OswegoCounty Department of Social Services, Respondent; Diane J., Appellant, et al.,Respondent. |
—[*1] Caraccioli & Nelson, PLLC, Mexico (Kathryn G. Wolfe of counsel), forpetitioner-respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oswego County (David J. Roman, J.), enteredMay 16, 2008 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order, insofar asappealed from, revoked a suspended judgment and terminated the parental rights of respondentDiane J. with respect to two of her children.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order revoking a suspended judgmentand terminating her parental rights with respect to two of her children. The mother failed topreserve for our review her contention that Family Court erred in considering her alleged actsand omissions that occurred either prior to the issuance of the suspended judgment or subsequentto petitioner's motion seeking revocation of the suspended judgment (see Matter of BrittanyK., 59 AD3d 952 [2009]). The court's determination that the mother violated the terms of thesuspended judgment is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of SeandellL., 57 AD3d 1511 [2008]) and, contrary to the mother's further contention, the court was notrequired to conduct a separate dispositional hearing "inasmuch as '[a] hearing on a petitionalleging the violation of a suspended judgment is part of the dispositional phase of a permanentneglect proceeding' " (id. at 1511; see Matter of Christyn Ann D., 26 AD3d 491,493 [2006]). We conclude that the evidence supports the court's determination that thetermination of the mother's parental rights with respect to the two children in question is in thebest interests of those children (see Matter of Ronald O., 43 AD3d 1351 [2007]). Finally,the mother did not ask the court to consider post-termination contact with the children inquestion or to conduct a hearing on that issue, and we conclude in any event that she "failed toestablish that such contact would be in the best interests of the children" (Matter of DianaM.T., 57 AD3d 1492, 1493 [2008]; see Matter of Jeremiah BB., 11 AD3d 763, 766[2004]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Carni, Green and Pine, JJ.