Opinion
419 CAF 20-00357
05-07-2021
In the MATTER OF DEANGELO B.-K. and Jamelle B.-K. Steuben County Department of Social Services, Petitioner-Respondent; v. Tia K., Respondent-Appellant, and Greggory L., Respondent. (Appeal No. 1.)
PAUL B. WATKINS, FAIRPORT, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. DONALD S. THOMSON, BATH, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. MARY HOPE BENEDICT, BATH, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.
PAUL B. WATKINS, FAIRPORT, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
DONALD S. THOMSON, BATH, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
MARY HOPE BENEDICT, BATH, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.
PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, respondent mother appeals in appeal No. 1 from an order of Family Court denying that part of her motion seeking to vacate a prior order of fact-finding and disposition, entered upon her consent, determining, inter alia, that the mother neglected two of her children. In appeal No. 2, the mother appeals from an order of the same court denying that part of her motion seeking to vacate a prior order of fact-finding and disposition, also entered on her consent, determining, inter alia, that she neglected her other two children. In each appeal, the mother contends that the court erred in denying the motion to the extent that it sought to vacate the prior order inasmuch as she was not adequately warned of the potential consequences of her consent to the neglect findings as required by Family Court Act § 1051 (f). The mother failed to assert that ground in support of her motion to vacate the prior orders, and the issue thus is not properly before us (see Matter of Nicole KK. , 46 A.D.3d 1267, 1268, 848 N.Y.S.2d 442 [3d Dept. 2007] ). We decline to reach that issue in the interest of justice. We have considered the mother's remaining contentions in each appeal and conclude that they are without merit.