Ordered that the order dated December 5, 2007 is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Rockland County, for a new hearing and determination of the petition.
A party in a Family Court Act article 8 proceeding has the right to be represented by counsel ( see Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [ii]; Matter of McGregor v Bacchus, 54 AD3d 678; Matter of Jetter v Jetter, 43 AD3d 821, 822). That party, however, may waive the right to counsel, provided that the waiver is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent ( see People v Arroyo, 98 NY2d 101, 103; People v Smith, 92 NY2d 516, 520; Matter of McGregor v Bacchus, 54 AD3d 678, 678-679; Matter of Jetter v Jetter, 43 AD3d 821, 822). To ensure a valid waiver, the court must conduct a "searching inquiry" of that party ( People v Slaughter, 78 NY2d 485, 491; see People v Arroyo, 98 NY2d 101, 103). While there is no rigid formula to be followed in such an inquiry, and the approach is a flexible one ( see People v Providence, 2 NY3d 579, 583), the record must demonstrate that the party "`was aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel'" ( People v Providence, 2 NY3d 579, 582, quoting People v Slaughter, 78 NY2d 485, 492; see Matter of Guzzo v Guzzo, 50 AD3d 687, 688).
Here, the Family Court failed to conduct a "searching inquiry" of the husband and failed to advise him of the risks of self-representation. Thus, there was no knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel ( see Matter of Guzzo v Guzzo, 50 AD3d 687, 688; Matter of Jetter v Jetter, 43 AD3d 821, 822). Accordingly, the order must be reversed, and the matter remitted to the Family Court, Rockland County, for a new hearing and determination of the petition.
In light of our determination, we do not consider the husband's remaining contention.