DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
To the extent that the appellant contends that the Family Court should have granted his application to have his daughter, Nesrine E., "place[d]" in his "custody" (Family Court Act § 756[a][1]), we agree with the court that her "needs and best interests" will best be served by her placement in a residential treatment center (Matter of Jeremy L., 220 A.D.2d 908). To the extent that the appellant's pending custody proceeding may have been dismissed, our holding is without prejudice to the appellant bringing a new proceeding.
The remaining contentions raised in the appellant's pro se brief, all of which are purportedly made on behalf of Nesrine E., cannot be considered, as she is represented by a Law Guardian who is protecting her interests and the appellant has no standing to address these issues (Family Court Act § 241; see also, Family Court Act § 249[a]; cf., Matter of Mittenthal v. Dumpson, 37 Misc.2d 502, 510).
ALTMAN, J.P., McGINITY, H. MILLER and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.