IN RE: CHANEL MONIQUE L. (Anonymous). (2006)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

IN RE: CHANEL MONIQUE L. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent; Eric P. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 1). In the Matter of Jasmine J. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent; Eric P. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 2). In the Matter of Tianna J. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent; Eric P. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 3). In the Matter of Tajahe J. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent; Eric P. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 4).

Decided: June 06, 2006

FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., ROBERT A. SPOLZINO, ROBERT A. LIFSON, and JOSEPH COVELLO, JJ.

Channing Kury, Commack, N.Y., for appellant. Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Gary L. Rosenthal of counsel), for respondent. Robert C. Mitchell, Central Islip, N.Y. (Regina M. Stanton of counsel), Law Guardian for the children.

In four related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father, Eric P., appeals, (1) from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), entered April 28, 2005, which, after a hearing, directed that an order of protection be issued preventing him from having any physical contact with the child Chanel Monique L. until her 18th birthday, and (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court entered April 29, 2005, as, after a hearing, directed that an order of protection be issued preventing him from having any contact with the children Jasmine J., Tianna J., and Tajahe J., until each child's 18th birthday.

ORDERED that the order entered April 28, 2005, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order entered April 29, 2005, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father's contentions, the Family Court properly directed the issuance of orders of protection preventing the father from having any contact with the subject children until each child's 18th birthday (see Family Ct. Act § 1056[4] ). Furthermore, the Family Court possessed sufficient information to render an informed decision in the best interests of the child Chanel Monique L. without conducting a separate hearing for that child (see Melnitzky v. Melnitzky, 278 A.D.2d 2, 717 N.Y.S.2d 147; Matter of Davis v. Davis, 265 A.D.2d 552, 697 N.Y.S.2d 155).

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law