| Matter of Iouke H. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03458 [50 AD3d 904] |
| April 15, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Iouke H. Administration for Children's Services,Respondent; Terrence H., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Jacoqua H.Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Terrence H., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)In the Matter of Mahaadai H. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Terrence H.,Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Naihaem H. Administration for Children'sServices, Respondent; Terrence H., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 4.) In the Matter of MarhoshedaH. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Terrence H., Appellant. (Proceeding No.5.) In the Matter of Ahsunaiya H. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; TerrenceH., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 6.) |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo andElizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for respondent. Larry S. Bachner, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the children Iouke H., Mahaadai H., andJacoqua H.
In six related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the fatherappeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Richardson, J.), dated June 29, 2007,which, after a hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028, denied his application toreturn the subject children to his custody.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion indenying his application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 to return the subject childrento his custody at this juncture. There was sufficient evidence presented at the hearing, heldpursuant to Family Court Act § 1028, that the children's emotional, mental, and physicalhealth would be at imminent risk if they were returned to live with their father (seeFamily Ct Act § 1028).
In light of the foregoing and the father's failure to comply with prior directives of the FamilyCourt to have the children evaluated by the Child Advocacy Center, we agree with the FamilyCourt's determination that the safer course is to not return the children to their father's custodypending a full fact-finding hearing (see Matter of Robert H., 307 AD2d 293 [2003];Matter of Marcos O., 270 AD2d 270 [2000]). Fisher, J.P., Miller, Carni and Dickerson,JJ., concur.