Opinion
October 18, 2001.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Otsego County (Coccoma, J.), entered January 24, 2000, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, to adjudicate Caleb "L" to be a neglected child.
Theodore J. Stein, Woodstock, for appellant.
Steven E. Ratner, Otsego County Department of Social Services, Cooperstown, for Otsego County Department of Social Services, respondent.
Before: Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Petitioner commenced this proceeding alleging that respondent Dani "L" (hereinafter respondent), who resides in Connecticut, neglected her son Caleb "L", who resides in New York with his father, by, inter alia, emotionally abusing Caleb during telephone conversations with him. Following a fact-finding hearing and a Lincoln hearing, Family Court found that respondent had neglected her child and, by dispositional order, placed the child in the custody of his father, granted respondent reasonable telephone contact and supervised biweekly visitation, and directed respondent to resume taking prescribed medication. Respondent appeals.
As relevant here, a neglected child is legislatively defined as one whose mental or emotional condition has been, or is in imminent danger of becoming, impaired as a result of his or her parent's failure to exercise a minimum degree of care by any act of a serious nature (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). "The appropriate inquiry is whether the [parent's] behavior constitutes conduct toward the child `requiring the aid of the court'" (Matter of Zariyasta S. [Vivian D.], 158 A.D.2d 45, 48, quoting Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]).
At the hearing, Family Court heard the caseworker describe her investigation of the child's complaints of being emotionally upset during conversations with respondent, the testimony of the child's father concerning numerous occasions when respondent applied severe emotional pressure to the child to effect a change in custody, and audiotape recordings of two telephone conversations during which respondent screamed, taunted and threatened this seven-year-old boy for not denouncing his father and agreeing to leave him to live with her. The child whimpered and cried, and was obviously emotionally distraught during respondent's recorded tirades. Based on the tape recordings and the testimony, and according great weight and deference to Family Court's determination (see, Matter of Chantel ZZ. [Pauline A.], 279 A.D.2d 669, 672; Matter of Kathleen OO. [Karen OO.], 232 A.D.2d 784, 785), we find that the record amply supports Family Court's conclusion that the child was, at the very least, in imminent danger of becoming emotionally impaired as a result of respondent's failure to exercise a minimum degree of care by behavior serious enough to require the aid of the court (see, Matter of Katie R. [Tammy R. — Edwin R.], 251 A.D.2d 698, 700, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 809;Matter of Christina LL. [Steven LL.], 233 A.D.2d 705, 708, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 812).
We also find no merit in respondent's contention that Family Court's dispositional order requiring her to take the medications prescribed by her treating physician or psychiatrist for her psychiatric disorders violated her constitutional right to refuse to do so. Here, unlike inRivers v. Katz ( 67 N.Y.2d 485), the court did not order the forcible administration of medication or do so without affording respondent due process. Rather, Family Court appropriately made continuation of respondent's prescribed medication a component of its visitation order rather than a prerequisite thereto (see, Matter of Caccavale v. Brown, 271 A.D.2d 717, 719).
Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.