| Matter of Kahlil S. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02401 [60 AD3d 1450] |
| March 27, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Kahlil S., an Infant. Erie County Department ofSocial Services, Respondent; Mamie W.-K., Appellant. (Appeal No.1.) |
—[*1] Joseph T. Jarzembek, Buffalo, for petitioner-respondent. David C. Schopp, Law Guardian, the Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Charles D.Halvorsen of counsel), for Kahlil S.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Kevin M. Carter, J.), enteredOctober 12, 2007 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The orderdetermined that posttermination contact between respondent and her child was not in the child'sbest interests.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: We previously modified orders terminating respondent mother's parentalrights with respect to each child pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b (4) (c) byremitting the matters to Family Court for a hearing to determine whether posttermination contactbetween the mother and her children was in the best interests of the children (Matter ofKahlil S., 35 AD3d 1164, 1166 [2006], lv dismissed 8 NY3d 977 [2007]; Matterof Terrell Z., 35 AD3d 1166 [2006]). Upon remittal, the court determined in the order that isthe subject of appeal No. 1 that posttermination contact with the mother would interfere with thepending adoption of one of the children and thus was not in his best interests. In the order that isthe subject of appeal No. 2, however, the court granted the mother "reasonable" post-terminationvisitation with the other child. Addressing first the order in appeal No. 2, we conclude thatappeal No. 2 must be dismissed because the mother is not aggrieved by that part of the ordergranting her visitation with the child (see generally CPLR 5511; Matter of SaafirA.M., 28 AD3d 1217 [2006]; Matter of Jefferson County Dept. of Social Servs. v MarkL.O., 12 AD3d 1037 [2004], lv dismissed 4 NY3d 794 [2005]).
With respect to the order in appeal No. 1, the mother contends that the court refused to granther posttermination contact with that child based on the unsworn statements of the caseworkersfor petitioner made during a "postdisposition review" from which the mother was excluded. Wereject that contention. The record establishes that the court's determination that [*2]posttermination visitation with the mother was not in the bestinterests of the child is properly based on evidence presented at the dispositional hearing (seegenerally Matter of Alyshia M.R., 53 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d707 [2008]), at which the mother was afforded the opportunity to present evidence in support ofposttermination visitation with the child and to controvert the evidence against her. Indeed, themother cross-examined each of petitioner's witnesses with respect to whether her contact withthe child would interfere with the adoption process (cf. Matter of Folsom v Folsom, 262AD2d 875 [1999]; see generally Matter of Heintz v Heintz, 28 AD3d 1154 [2006]).Finally, the mother's contention concerning visitation between the children is raised for the firsttime on appeal and thus is not preserved for our review (see Ciesinski v Town of Aurora,202 AD2d 984, 985 [1994]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Peradotto, Green andGorski, JJ.