Opinion
2014-06-18
In the Matter of MARIA C. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent; Delilah C. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Ledin C. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent; Delilah C. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 2) In the Matter of Brooklyn P. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent; Delilah C. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 3) In the Matter of Amber S. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Delilah C. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 4).
Robert C. Mitchell, Central Islip, N.Y. (Daniel R. Howard of counsel), for appellant. Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Samantha N. McEachin of counsel), for respondent.
Robert C. Mitchell, Central Islip, N.Y. (Daniel R. Howard of counsel), for appellant. Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Samantha N. McEachin of counsel), for respondent.
Michael E. Repole, Smithtown, N.Y., attorney for the children Maria C., Brooklyn P., and Amber S. (joining in the brief of the respondent).
Beth A. Rosenthal, North Babylon, N.Y., attorney for the child Ledin C.
In four related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Delilah C. appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Kelly, J.), dated May 8, 2013, which directed her to submit to a hair follicle drug test.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Family Court Act article 10, entitled “Child Protective Proceedings,” is designed to “help protect children from injury or mistreatment and to help safeguard their physical, mental, and emotional well-being” and provides “due process of law for determining when the state, through its family court, may intervene against the wishes of a parent on behalf of a child so that his [or her] needs are properly met” (Family Ct. Act § 1011; see Matter of Brianna L. [Marie A.], 103 A.D.3d 181, 186–187, 956 N.Y.S.2d 518). Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court properly directed the appellant to submit to a hair follicle drug test ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 251). DICKERSON, J.P., LEVENTHAL, HALL and MILLER, JJ., concur.