Ordered that the order of disposition in proceeding No. 1 and the order in proceeding No. 2 are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The mother's contentions that the Family Treatment Court is unconstitutional and that her right to due process was violated are unpreserved for appellate review ( see Matter of Larry B., 39 AD3d 399; Matter of Jesus M., 20 AD3d 479, 480; Matter of Coleman v Thomas, 295 AD2d 508, 509; Matter of Jamel Isaiah R., 18 AD3d 558; Matter of Vanessa F., 9 AD3d 464).
Moreover, the record reflects that the award of custody to the father was in the subject child's best interests ( see Matter of Conforti v Conforti, 46 AD3d 877, 878; Matter of Anderson v Sparks, 18 AD3d 656, 656-657). To the extent that the mother contends that the Family Court erred in failing to hold a full evidentiary hearing in connection with the orders appealed from, that contention is unpreserved for appellate review ( see Matter of Arsenio M., 51 AD3d 670, 671; Matter of Diaz v Santiago, 8 AD3d 562, 563).