Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court's determination that the father had neglected Evan E by fleeing from the police in a car chase, while the child was a passenger in the vehicle, is supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; § 1046 [b] [1]; Matter of Dimitriy R., 39 AD3d 866; see generally Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 368). Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court's finding of educational neglect is also supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [A]; § 1046 [b]; Matter of John N., 19 AD3d 497, 498-499). Based on the unrebutted evidence of excessive absences and tardiness during the 2003-2004 school year, continuing into the 2004-2005 school year, the Family Court could reasonably conclude that Evan F. was in imminent danger of becoming impaired ( see Matter of Jovann B., 153 AD2d 858, 859).
The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the father's application for appointment of a new law guardian ( see Matter of Brittany W., 25 AD3d 560; Matter of King v King, 266 AD2d 546, 547).
The father was not denied the effective assistance of counsel ( see Matter of Ashley L., 22 AD3d 915, 917; Matter of Matthew C., 227 AD2d 679, 682-683).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit.