Matter of Maria C. (Delilah C.)

Matter of Matter of Maria C. (Delilah C.) 2014 NY Slip Op 04483 Decided on June 18, 2014 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 18, 2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
THOMAS A. DICKERSON, J.P.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
L. PRISCILLA HALL
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
2013-05117
(Docket Nos. N-10288-12/13A, N-10308-12/13B, N-10310-12/13B, N-10312-12/13B)

[*1]In the Matter of Maria C. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent;

and

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.

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.

DECISION & ORDER

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 AD3d 181, 186-187). Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court properly directed the appellant to submit to a hair follicle drug test (see Family Ct Act § 251).

DICKERSON, J.P., LEVENTHAL, HALL and MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court