Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Having initially elected to represent herself in the instant proceeding wherein she sought an upward modification in child support, the petitioner cannot now be heard to complain of the consequences of her decision. Thus, we reject the petitioner's contention that the hearing examiner's report, which recommended denial of her request for increased child support, should be set aside due to the inadequacy of her own self-representation at the hearing. Furthermore, we note that contrary to the petitioner's contentions, the court was not under any obligation to specifically inform her of her right to retain a lawyer, of which she was nonetheless admittedly aware (see, Family Ct Act § 433). Additionally, we note that the court's rejection of the petitioner's objections, which were filed after an extension of time to file objections had expired, did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Weinstein, J.P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.