IN RE: FANTASIA Y. and Others

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

IN RE: FANTASIA Y. and Others, Alleged to be Neglected Children. Clinton County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Jeffrey Y., Appellant.

Decided: November 29, 2007

Before:  CARDONA, P.J., PETERS, SPAIN, CARPINELLO and LAHTINEN, JJ. Paul J. Connolly, Delmar, for appellant. Christine G. Berry, Clinton County Department of Social Services, Plattsburgh, for respondent. Aaron Turetsky, Law Guardian, Keeseville.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County (Lawliss, J.), entered December 14, 2006, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct. Act article 10, to adjudicate respondent's children to be neglected.

In October 2006, this neglect proceeding was commenced against respondent based on allegations that he had failed to take all necessary steps to obtain lifesaving medical treatment for his youngest daughter, who was then suffering from end stage liver disease and in dire need of a transplant.   He thereafter, with the advice of counsel, consented to a finding of neglect with respect to all of his children pursuant to Family Ct. Act § 1051.   Family Court then entered a fact-finding and dispositional order which, as relevant here, adjudicated the children to be neglected.   Respondent now appeals.

This appeal must be dismissed since it is well settled that no appeal lies from an order entered on consent (see e.g. Matter of Monica T., 44 A.D.3d 1136, 1137, 842 N.Y.S.2d 923, 924 [2007];  Matter of Cheyenne QQ., 39 A.D.3d 1044, 1045, 833 N.Y.S.2d 752 [2007];  Matter of Cheyenne QQ., 37 A.D.3d 977, 977-978, 830 N.Y.S.2d 600 [2007];  Matter of Elijah Q., 36 A.D.3d 974, 975, 828 N.Y.S.2d 607 [2007], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 809, 834 N.Y.S.2d 507, 866 N.E.2d 453 [2007];  Matter of Dawn N., 4 A.D.3d 634, 635, 771 N.Y.S.2d 738 [2004], lv. dismissed 2 N.Y.3d 786, 780 N.Y.S.2d 308, 812 N.E.2d 1258 [2004] ).   Respondent's argument that his consent was not knowing, intelligent or voluntary should have been pursued in a motion to vacate the order (see Family Ct. Act § 1051[f];  § 1061;  Matter of Cheyenne QQ., 37 A.D.3d at 978, 830 N.Y.S.2d 600).   Even if we were to consider the argument, we would find it to be patently without merit since the record reveals that, prior to permitting respondent to consent to the finding of neglect, Family Court engaged in a thorough colloquy with him to ensure that he understood the legal effect and consequences of his consent and that such consent was knowingly and voluntarily given (see Family Ct. Act § 1051[f];  see also Matter of Jonathan LL., 294 A.D.2d 752, 753, 742 N.Y.S.2d 430 [2002] ).

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

CARPINELLO, J.

CARDONA, P.J., PETERS, SPAIN and LAHTINEN, JJ., concur.

Copied to clipboard