Fontaine v. Juniper AssociatesFontaine v. Juniper Associates
Because the father failed to appear at the dispositional hearing, the dispositional determinations were entered on default and are not appealable by him (see Matter of Rosa S., 38 AD3d 216, 217 [2007]). Moreover, inasmuch as the date scheduled for the next permanency hearing has since passed, the appeal from the orders is moot (see Matter of Stephon Elijah G., 63 AD3d 640 [2009]).
The finding of neglect against the father was established by a preponderance of the evidence that he should have known of the mother’s substance abuse, but failed to take steps to protect the children (see Matter of R.W. Children, 240 AD2d 207 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 807 [1997]; see also Matter of Pearl M., 44 AD3d 348 [2007];
We have considered the father’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Nardelli, Catterson, DeGrasse and Roman, JJ.