DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court had jurisdiction over the appellant despite the dismissal of the petition against him. The protective order directing him to stay away from the subject child until her 18th birthday was issued "in assistance . . . of" (Family Ct Act § 1056) the dispositional order issued against the mother ( see Matter of Christina I, 226 A.D.2d 789; Matter of William GG, 222 A.D.2d 752; cf. Matter of Edwin SS., 302 A.D.2d 754; Matter of Anthony YY, 202 A.D.2d 740, 741). The appellant met the statutory definition of a person legally responsible for the child's care ( see Family Ct Act § 1012[g]; Matter of Yolanda D., 88 N.Y.2d 790, 797; Matter of Nathaniel TT, 265 A.D.2d 611; Matter of Mary Alice V., 222 A.D.2d 594, 595).
Further, the Family Court made an informed judgment that the protective order was necessary "to protect the health and safety of the child and the child's caretaker" (Family Ct Act § 1056) where there was evidence that the appellant was undermining the mother's authority as a parental figure, the mother testified that the appellant has become a negative influence on the child, and the caseworker personally observed the appellant's controlling behavior.
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
ALTMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, LUCIANO and CRANE, JJ., concur.