In re Maria C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Maria C.

118 A.D.3d 874, 987 N.Y.S.2d 236

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 18, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 118 A.D.3d 874 (In re Maria C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Maria C., 118 A.D.3d 874, 987 N.Y.S.2d 236 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In four related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Delilah C. appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Kelly, J.), dated May 8, 2013, which directed her to submit to a hair follicle drug test.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Family Court Act article 10, entitled “Child Protective Proceedings,” is designed to “help protect children from injury or mistreatment and to help safeguard their physical, mental, and emotional well-being” and provides “due process of law for determining when the state, through its family court, may intervene against the wishes of a parent on behalf of a child so that his [or her] needs are properly met” (Family Ct Act § 1011; see Matter of Brianna L. [Marie A.], 103 AD3d 181, 186-187 [2012]). Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court properly directed the appellant to submit to a hair follicle drug test (see Family Ct Act § 251).

Dickerson, J.E, Leventhal, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In four related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Delilah C. appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Kelly, J.), dated May 8, 2013, which directed her to submit to a hair follicle drug test.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Family Court Act article 10, entitled “Child Protective Proceedings,” is designed to “help protect children from injury or mistreatment and to help safeguard their physical, mental, and emotional well-being” and provides “due process of law for determining when the state, through its family court, may intervene against the wishes of a parent on behalf of a child so that his [or her] needs are properly met” (Family Ct Act § 1011; see Matter of Brianna L. [Marie A.], 103 AD3d 181, 186-187 [2012]). Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court properly directed the appellant to submit to a hair follicle drug test (see Family Ct Act § 251).

Dickerson, J.E, Leventhal, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.3d 874, 987 N.Y.S.2d 236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-maria-c-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack