Opinion
17 CAF 19-02080
02-11-2021
In the MATTER OF NINO H. Onondaga County Department of Children and Family Services, Petitioner-Respondent; v. Danielle F. and James H., Respondents-Appellants.
BELLETIER LAW OFFICE, SYRACUSE (ANTHONY BELLETIER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT DANIELLE F. TODD G. MONAHAN, LITTLE FALLS, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT JAMES H. ROBERT A. DURR, COUNTY ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (MAGGIE SEIKALY OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. SUSAN B. MARRIS, MANLIUS, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
BELLETIER LAW OFFICE, SYRACUSE (ANTHONY BELLETIER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT DANIELLE F.
TODD G. MONAHAN, LITTLE FALLS, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT JAMES H.
ROBERT A. DURR, COUNTY ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (MAGGIE SEIKALY OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
SUSAN B. MARRIS, MANLIUS, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal of respondent James H. from the order insofar as it concerns the disposition is unanimously dismissed and the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, respondent father and respondent mother appeal from an order that, inter alia, adjudicated the subject child to be a neglected child based on a finding of derivative neglect. Contrary to the contentions of respondents, Family Court's finding of derivative neglect has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Carmela H. [Danielle F.] , 164 A.D.3d 1607, 1607, 85 N.Y.S.3d 291 [4th Dept. 2018], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 32 N.Y.3d 1190, 95 N.Y.S.3d 143, 119 N.E.3d 783 [2019] ; Matter of Rashawn J. [Veronica H.-B.] , 159 A.D.3d 1436, 1437, 72 N.Y.S.3d 686 [4th Dept. 2018] ). Furthermore, the father failed to preserve for our review his contentions that the court should have recused itself (see Matter of Chromczak v. Salek , 173 A.D.3d 1750, 1750, 105 N.Y.S.3d 629 [4th Dept. 2019] ), that the Attorney for the Child should have been removed (see Matter of Buckley v. Kleinahans , 162 A.D.3d 1561, 1562, 78 N.Y.S.3d 569 [4th Dept. 2018] ), and that certain testimony was improperly admitted (see Matter of Cyle F. [Alexander F.] , 155 A.D.3d 1626, 1627, 64 N.Y.S.3d 842 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 911, 71 N.Y.S.3d 5, 94 N.E.3d 487 [2018]). Finally, the father's challenge to the dispositional provisions in the order, which were entered upon the parties’ consent, is not properly before us because " ‘no appeal lies from that part of an order entered on consent’ " ( Carmela H. , 164 A.D.3d at 1608, 85 N.Y.S.3d 291 ).