Matter of Dazahnae S. (Derek S.), 2015 NY Slip Op 01953 [126 AD3d 802]

March 11, 2015

Appellate Division, Second Department

[*1]

In the Matter of Dazahnae S. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Derek S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Dijore S. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Derek S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Dazah S. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Derek S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Dynasty S. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Derek S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 4.) In the Matter of Destiny B. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Derek S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 5.) In the Matter of Desiree S. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Derek S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 6.) In the Matter of Dominque B. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Derek S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 7.) In the Matter of Shameek S. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Derek S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 8.)

Lauren Shapiro, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Ballard Spahr Stillman & Friedman LLP [Scott M. Himes], of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing and Julie Steiner of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.

Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Patricia Colella of counsel), attorney for the children.

Appeal from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Lillian Wan, J.), dated September 10, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, directed the father to undergo a mental health evaluation.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

At a dispositional hearing in a neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, “[t]he paramount concern . . . is the best interests of the child[ren]” ( Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N.Y. v Leona W ., 192 AD2d 602, 603 [1993]; see Matter of Phillips N. [Joy N.] , 104 AD3d 690 , 691 [2013]). The factors to be considered in making the determination include the parent’s “capacity to properly supervise the child[ren], based on current information” and “the potential threat of future . . . neglect” ( Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N.Y. v Leona W ., 192 AD2d at 603; see Matter of Eric Z. [Guang Z.] , 100 AD3d 646 , 648 [2012]). Here, it was in the children’s best interests for the Family Court to direct the father to undergo a mental health evaluation ( see Matter of Salvatore M. [Nicole M.] , 104 AD3d 769 , 770 [2013]; Matter of Jamarra S. [Jessica S.] , 85 AD3d 803 , 805 [2011]).

The father’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Austin and Maltese, JJ., concur..