IN RE: CHRISTOPHER J. (2009)

Respondent mother appeals from an order revoking a suspended judgment and terminating her parental rights with respect to two of her children.   The mother failed to preserve for our review her contention that Family Court erred in considering her alleged acts and omissions that occurred either prior to the issuance of the suspended judgment or subsequent to petitioner's motion seeking revocation of the suspended judgment (see Matter of Brittany K., 59 A.D.3d 952, 872 N.Y.S.2d 817).   The court's determination that the mother violated the terms of the suspended judgment is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Seandell L., 57 A.D.3d 1511, 870 N.Y.S.2d 662) and, contrary to the mother's further contention, the court was not required to conduct a separate dispositional hearing “inasmuch as ‘[a] hearing on a petition alleging the violation of a suspended judgment is part of the dispositional phase of a permanent neglect proceeding’ ” (id. at 1511, 870 N.Y.S.2d 662;  see Matter of Christyn Ann D., 26 A.D.3d 491, 493, 811 N.Y.S.2d 94).   We conclude that the evidence supports the court's determination that the termination of the mother's parental rights with respect to the two children in question is in the best interests of those children (see Matter of Ronald O., 43 A.D.3d 1351, 842 N.Y.S.2d 801).   Finally, the mother did not ask the court to consider post-termination contact with the children in question or to conduct a hearing on that issue, and we conclude in any event that she “failed to establish that such contact would be in the best interests of the children” (Matter of Diana M.T., 57 A.D.3d 1492, 1493, 870 N.Y.S.2d 656;  see Matter of Jeremiah BB., 11 A.D.3d 763, 766, 783 N.Y.S.2d 99).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: