Memorandum: In this child protective proceeding pursuant to article 10 of the Family Court Act, William M. (respondent) contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Upon our review of the record, however, we conclude that respondent was afforded meaningful representation ( see Matter of Alfred C., 237 AD2d 517). Respondent failed to preserve for our review his further contention that the children had conflicting interests and should not have been jointly represented by the same Law Guardian ( see Matter of Wood v. Hargrave, 292 AD2d 795, 796, lv denied 98 NY2d 608; Matter of Lisa S. v. William S., 187 AD2d 435, 435-436).