Opinion
February 3, 1995
Appeal from the Oneida County Family Court, Cook, J.
Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in extending respondent's placement for a period of 12 months (see, Family Ct Act § 355.3; Matter of Percy H., 159 A.D.2d 623). The record supports the court's determination that petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the extension of placement would both protect society and be in the best interests of respondent (see, Family Ct Act § 352.2; Matter of Miguel F., 178 A.D.2d 1026; Matter of Percy H., supra). Contrary to the contention of respondent, the court, in making its determination, properly considered the failure of respondent's mother to participate in the counseling services that petitioner had made available to her (see, Family Ct Act § 355.3 [i]).