Opinion
04-19-2017
In the Matter of HANNAH T.R. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Soya R. (Anonymous), appellant.
Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings–on–Hudson, N.Y., for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Victoria Scalzo and Fay Ng of counsel), for respondent. Cheryl S. Solomon, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney for the child.
Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings–on–Hudson, N.Y., for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Victoria Scalzo and Fay Ng of counsel), for respondent.
Cheryl S. Solomon, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney for the child.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, BETSY BARROS, and VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court,
Kings County (Ilana Gruebel, J.), dated January 5, 2016. The order granted the motion of the subject child to testify at a fact-finding hearing via closed-circuit television.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A respondent parent's "right to be present at every stage of a Family Court Act article 10 proceeding is not absolute, as such a proceeding is civil in nature" (Matter of Q.–L.H., 27 A.D.3d 738, 739, 815 N.Y.S.2d 601 ). The Family Court must balance the respondent parent's due process rights with the mental and emotional well-being of the child (see Matter of Vany A.C. [Laneska M.], 125 A.D.3d 650, 651, 2 N.Y.S.3d 616 ; Matter of Amparo B.T. [Carlos B.E.], 118 A.D.3d 809, 810, 987 N.Y.S.2d 199 ; Matter of Michael U. [Marcus U.], 110 A.D.3d 821, 823, 973 N.Y.S.2d 676 ; Matter of Elisha M.W. [Ronald W.], 96 A.D.3d 863, 864, 946 N.Y.S.2d 481 ; Matter of Deshawn D.O. [Maria T.O.], 81 A.D.3d 961, 962, 917 N.Y.S.2d 874 ; Matter of Q.–L.H., 27 A.D.3d at 739, 815 N.Y.S.2d 601 ). Here, the court properly weighed the respective rights and interests of the mother and the subject child and thereafter providently exercised its discretion in permitting the child to testify via a two-way closed-circuit television arrangement (see Matter of Michael U. [Marcus U.], 110 A.D.3d at 823, 973 N.Y.S.2d 676 ; Matter of Elisha M.W. [Ronald W.], 96 A.D.3d at 864, 946 N.Y.S.2d 481 ). The mother, appearing pro se, was permitted to be present during the child's televised testimony and to cross-examine her, thereby safeguarding the mother's constitutional rights (see Matter of Vany A.C. [Laneska M.], 125 A.D.3d at 651, 2 N.Y.S.3d 616 ; Matter of Michael U. [Marcus U.], 110 A.D.3d at 823, 973 N.Y.S.2d 676 ; Matter of Deshawn D.O. [Maria T.O.], 81 A.D.3d at 962, 917 N.Y.S.2d 874 ; Matter of Q.–L.H., 27 A.D.3d at 739, 815 N.Y.S.2d 601 ).