Majority
Appeals from an order and an amended order of the Family Court of Sullivan County (Meddaugh, J.), entered August 20, 2014, which, in proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act articles 6, 10 and 10-A, among other things, directed that respondent James F. have no contact with the subject children.
In 2014, the Department of Family Services filed a notice of permanency pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10-A recommending that custody of the children be awarded to petitioners, who thereafter filed a petition seeking custody of the children under Family Ct Act article 6. After a combined hearing at which the attorney for the children consented to the custody request, and an in camera hearing with the children, Family Court issued an order and an amended order which, among other things, granted petitioners sole legal and physical custody of the children, directed that the father shall have no contact with the children, and continued the 2008 permanent order of protection. The father appeals, challenging Family Court’s directive that he have no contact with the children and continuing the 2008 order of protection.
We affirm. The father, who was represented by counsel throughout the course of the proceedings, did not seek to modify or challenge the 2008 no-contact order of protection. He opposed the custody petition, but he did not testify, call witnesses or elicit testimony regarding the advisability of contact with the children, nor did he at any time make a request for contact with the children. The father’s attorney indicated that the father simply wanted to be sure that the children were aware “that he’s alive and exists.” The testimony established that the children had asked about the father and were aware that he
Egan Jr., Rose and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order and amended order are affirmed, without costs.
Cases cited
- In re Marcus BB. 129 AD3d 1134 at 1135 p. 1197
- Anthony MM. v. Rena LL. 34 AD3d 1171 at 1172 p. 1197