Opinion
2003-05370.
Decided June 1, 2004.
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Gary W. appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Bogacz, J.), dated November 5, 2003, which, after a hearing, and upon finding him to be a person legally responsible for the subject child's care pursuant to Family Court Act § 1012(g), denied his motion to vacate an order of protection issued March 18, 2002, directing him to have no contact with the subject child until she reaches her 18th birthday.
Bradley B. Davis, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers and Janet L. Zaleon of counsel), for respondent.
Monica Drinane, New York, N.Y. (Patricia S. Colella of counsel), Law Guardian for the child.
Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court had jurisdiction over the appellant despite the dismissal of the petition against him. The protective order directing him to stay away from the subject child until her 18th birthday was issued "in assistance . . . of" (Family Ct Act § 1056) the dispositional order issued against the mother ( see Matter of Christina I, 226 A.D.2d 789; Matter of William GG, 222 A.D.2d 752; cf. Matter of Edwin SS., 302 A.D.2d 754; Matter of Anthony YY, 202 A.D.2d 740, 741). The appellant met the statutory definition of a person legally responsible for the child's care ( see Family Ct Act § 1012[g]; Matter of Yolanda D., 88 N.Y.2d 790, 797; Matter of Nathaniel TT, 265 A.D.2d 611; Matter of Mary Alice V., 222 A.D.2d 594, 595).
Further, the Family Court made an informed judgment that the protective order was necessary "to protect the health and safety of the child and the child's caretaker" (Family Ct Act § 1056) where there was evidence that the appellant was undermining the mother's authority as a parental figure, the mother testified that the appellant has become a negative influence on the child, and the caseworker personally observed the appellant's controlling behavior.
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
ALTMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, LUCIANO and CRANE, JJ., concur.