IN RE: Juanita AIKENS (2009)

 Petitioner mother commenced this proceeding seeking a determination that respondent is the father of her then-12-year-old child and seeking an award of child support.   Respondent appeals from an order denying his objections to the order of the Support Magistrate directing him to pay child support following the entry of an order of filiation.   Contrary to the contention of respondent, Family Court properly determined that he may not invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel.  “[W]hile the doctrine of equitable estoppel is applicable in paternity proceedings where it is invoked to further the best interests of the child ․, it generally is not available to a party seeking to disavow the allegation of parenthood for the purpose of avoiding child support” (Matter of Dowed v. Munna, 306 A.D.2d 278, 279, 761 N.Y.S.2d 261;  see Matter of Ruby M.M. v. Moses K., 18 A.D.3d 471, 472, 795 N.Y.S.2d 73).   We reject the further contentions of respondent that he was denied both the right to counsel and to the effective assistance of counsel.   The record establishes that, at the initial appearance on the petition, the Support Magistrate advised respondent of his right to counsel and that he elected to proceed pro se (see Matter of Falcon v. Accardi, 193 A.D.2d 1063, 1064, 598 N.Y.S.2d 406;  cf. Matter of Allegany County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Thomas T., 273 A.D.2d 916, 917, 710 N.Y.S.2d 745).   Although the Support Magistrate failed to advise respondent that he had a right to have counsel assigned if he was financially unable to retain counsel (see Family Ct. Act § 262[a] ), we conclude that respondent waived his right to appellate review of that omission by failing to raise it in his written objections to the order of the Support Magistrate (see § 439 [e];  Matter of Meriwether v. Howe, 286 A.D.2d 832, 833, 730 N.Y.S.2d 460, lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 609, 739 N.Y.S.2d 357, 765 N.E.2d 853;  cf. Allegany County Dept. of Social Servs., 273 A.D.2d at 917, 710 N.Y.S.2d 745).   Finally, we reject the contention of respondent that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.

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

MEMORANDUM: