IN RE: ALFRED C. (Anonymous) (1997)

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the parents appeal from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Warren, J.), dated November 9, 1994, which, after a fact-finding hearing, determined that Alfred C. was an abused and neglected child and that Suzanne C. was a neglected child.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

 The right to counsel in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 is guaranteed by statute (see, Family Ct Act § 262[a] [i] ).   In assessing a claim based upon ineffective assistance of counsel, the focus is whether the individual received “meaningful” assistance (see, People v. English, 215 A.D.2d 871, 627 N.Y.S.2d 105;  Matter of Erin G., 139 A.D.2d 737, 739, 527 N.Y.S.2d 488;  Matter of De Vivo v. Burrell, 101 A.D.2d 607, 474 N.Y.S.2d 860).   Because of the potentially drastic consequences of a child protective proceeding, the statutory right to counsel under Family Court Act § 262 affords protections equivalent to the constitutional standard of effective assistance of counsel afforded defendants in criminal proceedings (see, Matter of Erin G., supra, at 739, 527 N.Y.S.2d 488;  Matter of De Vivo v. Burrell, supra).   Applying these principles here we find that the appellants were afforded meaningful representation, thereby satisfying the constitutional standard (see, Matter of Erin G., supra, at 739, 527 N.Y.S.2d 488;  People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 497 N.Y.S.2d 903, 488 N.E.2d 834;  People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).

The appellants' remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.