Monroe County Attorney, Respondent. v. << (1999)

Family Court did not abuse its discretion in directing respondent's placement with the Office of Children and Family Services in a limited secure facility.   The evidence at the dispositional hearing establishes that respondent has problems with drug abuse, impulse control and aggressiveness;  he needs drug treatment, psychological counseling, special educational services and a structured environment.   The evidence further establishes that those problems and needs can be most effectively addressed in a limited secure facility.   We conclude, therefore, that the court properly adopted the least restrictive available alternative consistent with the needs and best interests of respondent and the need for protection of the community (see, Family Ct. Act § 352.2[2][a];  Matter of Charles A., 234 A.D.2d 1003, 651 N.Y.S.2d 809;  Matter of Jose M., 210 A.D.2d 228, 619 N.Y.S.2d 349).

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: