| Matter of Dazahnae S. (Derek S.) |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 01953 [126 AD3d 802] |
| March 11, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| In the Matter of Dazahnae S. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Derek S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Dijore S. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Derek S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Dazah S. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Derek S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Dynasty S. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Derek S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 4.) In the Matter of Destiny B. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Derek S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 5.) In the Matter of Desiree S. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Derek S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 6.) In the Matter of Dominque B. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Derek S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 7.) In the Matter of Shameek S. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Derek S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 8.) |
Lauren Shapiro, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Ballard Spahr Stillman & Friedman LLP [Scott M. Himes], of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing and Julie Steiner of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Patricia Colella of counsel), attorney for the children.
Appeal from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Lillian Wan, J.), dated September 10, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, directed the father to undergo a mental health evaluation.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
At a dispositional hearing in a neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, "[t]he paramount concern . . . is the best interests of the child[ren]" (Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N.Y. v Leona W., 192 AD2d 602, 603 [1993]; see Matter of Phillips N. [Joy N.], 104 AD3d 690, 691 [2013]). The factors to be considered in making the determination include the parent's "capacity to properly supervise the child[ren], based on current information" and "the potential threat of future . . . neglect" (Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N.Y. v Leona W., 192 AD2d at 603; see Matter of Eric Z. [Guang Z.], 100 AD3d 646, 648 [2012]). Here, it was in the children's best interests for the Family Court to direct the father to undergo a mental health evaluation (see Matter of Salvatore M. [Nicole M.], 104 AD3d 769, 770 [2013]; Matter of Jamarra S. [Jessica S.], 85 AD3d 803, 805 [2011]).
The father's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Austin and Maltese, JJ., concur.