IN RE: JHANELLE B. (2012)

 In each appeal, respondent mother appeals from respective orders revoking a suspended judgment and terminating her parental rights with respect to her three children.   Contrary to the mother's contention, Family Court did not err in failing to conduct a dispositional hearing on the best interests of the children following her admission that she failed to comply with the conditions of the suspended judgments.   Indeed, the record establishes that the court “had already considered their best interests when it suspended judgment and indicated to [the mother] that if [s]he failed to comply with the conditions [her] parental rights could be terminated” (Matter of Grace Q., 200 A.D.2d 894, 896, 607 N.Y.S.2d 457;  see Matter of Shavira P., 283 A.D.2d 1027, 1028, 723 N.Y.S.2d 919, lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 604, 736 N.Y.S.2d 308, 761 N.E.2d 1035;  Matter of Brendan A., 278 A.D.2d 784, 784–785, 722 N.Y.S.2d 929;  see generally Family Ct. Act § 633[f];  22 NYCRR 205.50[d][5] ).   The court was not required to conduct a further dispositional hearing (see Matter of Darren V., 61 A.D.3d 986, 986–987, 878 N.Y.S.2d 171, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 715, 884 N.Y.S.2d 690, 912 N.E.2d 1071;  Matter of Christopher J., 60 A.D.3d 1402, 1403, 876 N.Y.S.2d 275;  Shavira P., 283 A.D.2d at 1028, 723 N.Y.S.2d 919;  Brendan A., 278 A.D.2d at 785, 722 N.Y.S.2d 929), inasmuch as matters considered in regard to a parent's violation of a suspended judgment are part of the dispositional stage in permanent neglect proceedings (see Christopher J., 60 A.D.3d at 1403, 876 N.Y.S.2d 275;  Matter of Seandell L., 57 A.D.3d 1511, 1511, 870 N.Y.S.2d 662, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 708, 879 N.Y.S.2d 55, 906 N.E.2d 1089;  Matter of Saboor C., 303 A.D.2d 1022, 1023, 757 N.Y.S.2d 192).   In addition, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to do so, and we note that in fact the mother did not request a hearing.   Further, the record establishes that the children have spent almost their entire lives in foster care and were in a placement that was an adoptive resource, and that the mother has been unwilling to confront her chemical dependency issues, which was a central concern that led to the removal of the children.   We thus conclude that the court's determination to terminate her parental rights was in the children's best interests (see Matter of Clifton ZZ., 75 A.D.3d 683, 685, 903 N.Y.S.2d 816;  Darren V., 61 A.D.3d at 988, 878 N.Y.S.2d 171;  Matter of Lord–El T., 260 A.D.2d 955, 956, 689 N.Y.S.2d 272;  Grace Q., 200 A.D.2d at 896, 607 N.Y.S.2d 457).   The mother's remaining contentions are either not preserved for our review or are without merit.

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

MEMORANDUM: