Opinion
2014-06-18
In the Matter of BERNALYSA K. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Richard S. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Mariellva K. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Richard S. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 2) In the Matter of Jothan S. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Richard S. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 3) In the Matter of Rayen S. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Richard S. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 4) In the Matter of Reagen S. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Richard S. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 5).
Edward E. Caesar, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein of counsel; Christina Chung on the brief), for respondent.
Edward E. Caesar, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein of counsel; Christina Chung on the brief), for respondent.
John C. Macklin, New Hyde Park, N.Y., attorney for the children.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
In five related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (McGowan, J.), dated January 8, 2013, which denied his motion to modify an order of disposition of the same court entered April 15, 2009, to allow visitation with the subject children.
ORDERED that the order dated January 8, 2013, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Pursuant to an order of disposition entered April 15, 2009, an order of protection was issued against the father barring visitation with the subject children and requiring completion of a program for sex offenders and therapy prior to his seeking modification thereof. In June 2012, without having complied with the terms of the order, the father moved to modify the order of disposition to permit supervised visitation.
Family Court Act § 1061 provides that, for good cause shown, the court may set aside, modify, or vacate any order issued in the course of a child protective proceeding ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 1061; Matter of Kevin M.H. [Kevin H.], 102 A.D.3d 690, 958 N.Y.S.2d 175;Matter of Desiree L., 28 A.D.3d 484, 811 N.Y.S.2d 582). “Good cause” includes compliance with drug or sexual abuse treatment requirements, and psychiatric assessment ( see Matter of Alexander L. [Andrea L.], 109 A.D.3d 767, 972 N.Y.S.2d 229;Matter of Benjamin M. v. Orange County Dept. of Social Servs., 20 A.D.3d 535, 536, 800 N.Y.S.2d 427;Matter of Jeffrey X., 283 A.D.2d 687, 689, 724 N.Y.S.2d 126;Matter of Jenna R., 207 A.D.2d 403, 404, 615 N.Y.S.2d 459).
Here, the Family Court properly determined that the father did not comply with the requirements set forth in the order of disposition. He therefore failed to demonstrate good cause to modify that order ( see Matter of Alexander L. [Andrea L.], 109 A.D.3d at 767, 972 N.Y.S.2d 229;Matter of Benjamin M. v. Orange County Dept. of Social Servs., 20 A.D.3d at 536, 800 N.Y.S.2d 427;Matter of Jeffrey X., 283 A.D.2d at 689, 724 N.Y.S.2d 126).
The father's remaining contentions are not properly before this Court.