| Matter of Connor S. (Joseph S.) |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 08076 [122 AD3d 1096] |
| November 20, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Connor S. and Others, ChildrenAlleged to Be Neglected. Schoharie County Department of Social Services, Respondent;Joseph S., Appellant. |
Bruce E. Knoll, Albany, for appellant.
David Lapinal, Schoharie County Department of Social Services, Schoharie, forrespondent.
Leah W. Casey, Schenectady, attorney for the children.
Teresa Meade, Middleburgh, attorney for the child.
Devine, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Schoharie County (BartlettIII, J.), entered May 3, 2013, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceedingpursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to adjudicate the subject children to beneglected.
Respondent is the father of Connor S. (born in 2001), Eoin S. (born in 2002) andLiam S. (born in 2008). Respondent is the sole living parent of Connor and Eoin and hasphysical custody of them, while Liam's mother has custody of him. Petitionercommenced this neglect proceeding alleging that respondent had engaged in acts ofdomestic violence in the presence of the children involving Liam's mother and hisparamour. While assisted by counsel, respondent consented to a finding that he hadneglected the children pursuant to Family Ct Act § 1051 (a) and, thereafter,Family Court adjudicated the children as neglected and ordered respondent to complywith several terms and conditions, including the continued supervision by petitioner.Respondent now appeals.
Respondent maintains that his consent to Family Court's finding of neglect wasinvoluntary as he was under stress and was misinformed by his attorney and the court ofthe consequences of agreeing to the disposition. Inasmuch as the order that respondentchallenges was entered on consent, it cannot be appealed (see Matter of Gabrielle S.[Reberick T.], 105 AD3d 1098, 1098-1099 [2013]; Matter of Trenton G. [LianneH.], 100 AD3d 1124, 1125 [2012]; Matter of Fantasia Y., 45 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2007]). Asrespondent failed to move to vacate the order on the grounds that he now raises, we mustdismiss the appeal (see Matterof Mary UU. [Michael UU.—Marie VV.], 70 AD3d 1227, 1228 [2010];Matter of Nicole KK., 46AD3d 1267, 1268 [2007]; Matter of Cheyenne QQ., 37 AD3d 977, 978 [2007]).Nonetheless, were the order before us we would find, upon a review of the record, thatrespondent knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the consent order and that he was dulyinformed of its implications (see Family Ct Act § 1051 [f]; Matter of Gabriella R. [MindynS.], 68 AD3d 1487, 1488 [2009], lv dismissed 14 NY3d 812[2010]).
Stein, J.P., Garry, Rose and Lynch, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed,without costs.