| Matter of Amanda WW. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07040 [43 AD3d 1256] |
| September 27, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Amanda WW. and Others, Children Alleged to beAbused and Neglected. Clinton County Department of Social Services, Respondent; EdwardXX., Appellant. |
—[*1] John Dee, Clinton County Department of Social Services, Plattsburgh, for respondent. Lynne E. Ackner, Law Guardian, Glens Falls.
Mercure, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lawliss, J.), entered November 6,2006 in Clinton County, which, among other things, granted petitioner's application, in aproceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to extend a prior order of supervision.
Respondent is the father of two daughters (born in 1989 and 1993) and a son (born in 2001).In November 2005, based upon respondent's admission that he engaged in oral sexual contactwith one of his daughters, Supreme Court adjudicated that child to be abused and neglected andthe remaining children to be derivatively abused and neglected. Respondent's daughters werereleased to the custody of their mother, a resident of Maine, without supervision; the son wasreleased to the custody of his mother, a resident of Clinton County, under petitioner'ssupervision. The court also issued an order of protection prohibiting respondent from contactingor communicating with the children for a period of one year.
Petitioner now seeks extension of its supervision of respondent for a period of one year [*2]pursuant to Family Ct Act § 1057. All parties consented tothe extension before Supreme Court, but respondent requested a hearing on the issue of hiscontact with the children. Following the hearing, Supreme Court extended the period ofsupervision until October 15, 2007, and entered a corrective order of protection directingrespondent to stay away from the three children except during periods of supervised visitationevery other week with his son. The order of protection also permitted respondent to communicatewith his daughters via written correspondence transmitted through the Law Guardian's office.Respondent appeals and we now affirm.
Although respondent consented to extension of petitioner's supervision, he asserts thatSupreme Court abused its discretion in continuing to limit his contact with his children. TheFamily Court Act provides for successive extensions of supervision "upon a hearing and for goodcause shown" (Family Ct Act § 1057; see Matter of Caleb L., 289 AD2d 902, 902[2001]; Matter of Catherine P., 269 AD2d 702, 703 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d751 [2000]), and also permits the issuance of orders of protection "in assistance or as a conditionof" orders extending supervision (Family Ct Act § 1056 [1]; see Matter of Sheena D., 8 NY3d136, 139 [2007]). Moreover, with regard to orders of protection prohibiting unsupervisedcontact, "[i]t is well settled that a . . . determination regarding visitation will not bedisturbed unless it lacks a sound basis in the record" (Matter of Catherine P., 269 AD2dat 703). Here, respondent has an admitted history of sexual abuse and an ongoing need forcounseling, the parties agreed at the hearing that continued supervision was appropriate, andrespondent acknowledged that an order of protection entered as part of his criminal sentenceprohibited contact with one of his daughters. Accordingly, we cannot say that Supreme Courterred in extending supervision or abused its discretion in continuing to limit respondent's contactwith his children (see Matter of Caleb L., 289 AD2d at 902; see also Matter ofAmanda SS., 284 AD2d 588, 589 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 606 [2001]; Matterof Catherine P., 269 AD2d at 703).
Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.