In re Katie II.
In September 2009, respondent consented to a finding of neglect of his two daughters. Family Cоurt issued an order of protection ordering respondent to, among other things, refrain from “reckless endangerment, disorderly conduct, intimidation, [or] threats” against the children, “acts that create an unreasonable risk to the health, safety or welfare” of the children, and “subjecting the subject children to any form of name calling and/or any other disparaging remarks.” In addition, respondent was ordered “not [to] use any prescription medications unless specifically prеscribed to [him] by a healthcare provider,” and he was to “ensure that all prescription mеdications are kept in a secured lock box and that neither of the subject children arе provided access to the lock box,” and that “no third parties engage in any conversаtion with and/or in the presence of the subject children which is age inappropriate, including but not limited to court proceedings.”
In December 2009, petitioner commenced this proceeding alleging that respondent willfully violated the order of protection in that he (1) allowed the children access to the lock box, (2)
With respect to petitioner‘s allegations оf reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct, the hearing testimony reflects that, in September 2009, as respondent‘s wife and one of the children were attempting to leave the residence in a vehicle to attend a mental health appointment, respondent attempted to stop them by jumping onto the vehicle‘s running board and hanging onto the side view mirror while still arguing with his wife. Resрondent proceeded to get into the driver‘s seat and, while still arguing with his wife, drove around the U-shaped driveway and onto the road, while the child was sitting in the back seat with her door ajar.1 Next, althоugh respondent disputed that he possessed prescription medication that was not his own, respondent‘s wife testified that he was in possession of a prescription for hydrocodonе that belonged to someone else. In addition, a caseworker employed by petitioner testified that respondent admitted to him that he was in possession of prescription medication that was not his own. Finally, the wife testified that respondent had threatened to hurt the children and also called them derogatory names, such as “whore, slut [and] bitch.” While respondent denied having threatened the children, he did admit that he called one of the children a “bitch.”
Giving deference to Family Court‘s credibility assessments (see Matter of Telsa Z. [Rickey Z.], 75 AD3d 776, 778 [2010]), we conclude that petitioner established by clear and convincing ev
Mercure, J.P., Malone Jr., Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.