In People v. Clemson (149 Misc 2d 868 [Newark Vil Ct, Wayne County 1991]), the court faulted the procedure prescribed in Matter of Cheri H. for two reasons: First, the court in Cheri H. failed to delineate a basis for jurisdiction over the respondent's father for the purpose of making and/or enforcing an order directing payment, instead seeming to implicitly hold that County Law 722-d authorizes direct payment from a parent to a governmental entity to pay for legal services rendered to an unemancipated minor. ( People v. Clemson, supra at 873.) In addition, Cheri H. did not set forth any procedure for enforcing the court's order, or for bringing an action, should payment not be made, instead referring the matter to the Attorney General of the State of New York, the Commissioner of Finance of the City of New York, and the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York for "appropriate action," without delineating what that action should be. ( People v. Clemson, supra at 872.)