Opinion
2015-05-01
In the Matter of CYLE J.F. and Corey A.F. Seneca County Division Of Human Services, Petitioner–Respondent; Alexander F., Respondent–Appellant.
Franklin & Gabriel, Ovid (Steven J. Getman of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant. Frank R. Fisher, County Attorney, Waterloo (David R. Morabito, Jr., of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent.
Franklin & Gabriel, Ovid (Steven J. Getman of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant. Frank R. Fisher, County Attorney, Waterloo (David R. Morabito, Jr., of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent.
Marybeth D. Barnet, Attorney for the Children, Canandaigua.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, VALENTINO, and WHALEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Respondent father appeals from an order of disposition placing his children in the custody of petitioner upon a finding that he neglected the children by, inter alia, inflicting excessive corporal punishment and misusing a drug ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 1012[f][i][B] ). The father contends that Family Court denied him due process by allowing the children's mother, who was not a respondent in the neglect proceeding, to participate in the fact-finding hearing as a party even after she withdrew her custody petition ( see generally § 1035[d]; Matter of Telsa Z. [Rickey Z.-Denise Z.], 71 A.D.3d 1246, 1250–1251, 897 N.Y.S.2d 281). The father did not timely object to the mother's participation and thus failed to preserve his contention for our review ( see generally Matter of Lucinda A. [Luba A.], 120 A.D.3d 492, 494, 990 N.Y.S.2d 627, lv. denied25 N.Y.3d 962, 2015 WL 1471279 [Apr. 2, 2015]; Matter of Ashley L.C. [James L.C.], 68 A.D.3d 1742, 1743, 890 N.Y.S.2d 863). In any event, we reject the father's related contention that the court erred in denying his motion to strike evidence elicited by the mother inasmuch as other evidence amply supports the finding of neglect ( see generally Matter of Kinara C. [Jerome C.], 89 A.D.3d 839, 840–841, 932 N.Y.S.2d 169; Matter of Mary S., 279 A.D.2d 896, 898, 720 N.Y.S.2d 568). The father's remaining contentions relate only to the disposition, i.e., the placement of the children and the terms of his visitation with them, and we dismiss as moot the father's appeal from that part of the order inasmuch as it has expired by its own terms ( see Matter of Gabriella G. [Jeannine G.], 104 A.D.3d 1136, 1136, 962 N.Y.S.2d 537; Matter of Kennedie M. [Douglas M.], 89 A.D.3d 1544, 1546, 934 N.Y.S.2d 278, lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 808, 2012 WL 539274).
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal from the order insofar as it concerns disposition is unanimously dismissed and the order is otherwise affirmed without costs.