Ordered that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petition alleged that the appellant and the petitioner shared a "child in common" (Family Ct Act § 812 [d]), named the petitioner's child, and specified that the appellant was the child's father. Under these circumstances, the Family Court properly determined that it had jurisdiction over this matter ( see Family Ct Act § 812).
The record supports the court's determination that, based on a preponderance of the evidence, the father engaged in acts which would constitute the offenses of disorderly conduct, harassment, and menacing warranting the issuance of the order of protection ( see Family Ct Act § 832; Matter of Marsha C. v. Latoya D., 224 AD2d 522). Moreover, the Family Court's finding was not against the weight of the evidence ( see Matter of Cleary v. Morgan, 306 AD2d 475; Matter of Samora v. Coutsoukis, 292 AD2d 390).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.