Matter of Seth M.
2009 NY Slip Op 07021 [66 AD3d 1448]
October 2, 2009
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, December 9, 2009


In the Matter of Seth M. and Another, Infants. Jefferson CountyDepartment of Social Services, Respondent; Margo B., Appellant.

[*1]Dennis A. Germain, Watertown, for respondent-appellant.

Caraccioli & Nelson, PLLC, Watertown (Kathryn G. Wolfe of counsel), forpetitioner-respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Jefferson County (Richard V. Hunt, J.), enteredMay 29, 2008 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order, interalia, terminated the parental rights of respondent.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law byremitting the matter to Family Court, Jefferson County, for further proceedings in accordancewith the memorandum and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order adjudicating her children who arethe subject of this proceeding to be permanently neglected and terminating her parental rightswith respect to them. We note at the outset that the mother contends for the first time on appealthat Family Court erred in accepting her consent to the finding of permanent neglect withoutconducting a further inquiry into her capacity to consent and thus failed to preserve thatcontention for our review (see Matter ofBert M., 50 AD3d 1509 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 704 [2008]; cf. Matter of Jeffrey M., 6 AD3d1156 [2004]). In any event, we conclude that her contention lacks merit.

Contrary to the mother's further contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in decliningto conduct an in camera interview of the two children at issue during the dispositional hearing(see generally Matter of Crystal Q., 173 AD2d 912, 913 [1991], lv denied 78NY2d 855 [1991]).

Finally, as petitioner correctly concedes, the court erred in determining that it lacked theauthority to permit post-termination visitation between the mother and the two children at issue(see Matter of Josh M., 61 AD3d1366, 1367 [2009]; Bert M., 50 AD3d at 1511; Matter of Kahlil S., 35 AD3d 1164 [2006], lv dismissed 8NY3d 977 [2007]). We therefore modify the order by remitting the matter to Family Court todetermine, following a further hearing, if necessary, whether posttermination contact betweenthe mother and the two children is in the best interests of those children (see Bert M., 50AD3d at 1511). Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Carni, Pine and Gorski, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.