Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The right to counsel in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 is guaranteed by statute ( see, Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [i]). In assessing a claim based upon ineffective assistance of counsel, the focus is whether the individual received "meaningful" assistance ( see, People v English, 215 AD2d 871; Matter of Erin G, 139 AD2d 737, 739; Matter of De Vivo v Burrell, 101 AD2d 607). Because of the potentially drastic consequences of a child protective proceeding, the statutory right to counsel under Family Court Act § 262 affords protections equivalent to the constitutional standard of effective assistance of counsel afforded defendants in criminal proceedings ( see, Matter of Erin G., supra, at 739; Matter of De Vivo v Burrell, supra). Applying these principles here we find that the appellants were afforded meaningful representation, thereby satisfying the constitutional standard ( see, Matter of Erin G., supra, at 739; People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).
The appellants' remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.