DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Although the order of protection in favor of two of the appellant mother's children has expired, "in light of the enduring consequences which may potentially flow from an adjudication that a party has committed a family offense * * * this appeal is not academic" ( Matter of Cutrone v. Cutrone, 225 A.D.2d 767, 768; see Matter of Bickwid v. Deutsch, 87 N.Y.2d 862; Matter of Grossman v. Grossman, 238 A.D.2d 339).
Contrary to the mother's contention, the record supports the Family Court's determination that, based on a preponderance of the credible evidence, she committed a family offense, warranting the issuance of the order of protection ( see Family Ct Act §§ 812, 832; Matter of Dabbene v. Dabbene, 297 A.D.2d 812; Matter of Hogan v. Hogan, 271 A.D.2d 533).
Also, the Family Court possessed adequate relevant information to enable it to make an informed and provident custody determination ( see Matter of Porter v. Burgey, 266 A.D.2d 552; Webster v. Webster, 163 A.D.2d 178; cf. Metzger v. Metzger, 240 A.D.2d 642). The evidence before the court was sufficient to enable it, even without a hearing, to reach a sound conclusion that, under the circumstances of this case, it was in the subject children's best interest for custody to be awarded to the father ( see Matter of Vangas v. Ladas, 259 A.D.2d 755; Matter of Goldman v. Goldman, 201 A.D.2d 860; David W. v. Julia W., 158 A.D.2d 1).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit.
SANTUCCI, J.P., FLORIO, SCHMIDT and RIVERA, JJ., concur.