Constitutional Law · MBE-tested
In the Matter of Maria C. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Delilah C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Ledin C. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Delilah C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Brooklyn P. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Delilah C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Amber S. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Delilah C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 4.)
118 A.D.3d 874987 N.Y.S.2d 236·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·2014·NY
Dickerson, J.E, Leventhal, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In the Matter of Maria C. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Delilah C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Ledin C. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Delilah C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Brooklyn P. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Delilah C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Amber S. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Delilah C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 4.)
[987 NYS2d 236]
[MAJORITY]
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.