Opinion
November 2, 1992
Appeal from the Family Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner's claim that the order appealed from was not a dispositional order, and thus is not appealable, is incorrect. Although in most instances an appeal may not be taken as of right from a nondispositional order of the Family Court, an appeal from a nonfinal order in an abuse case may be taken as of right (see, Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; Matter of Peter R. v Denise R., 163 A.D.2d 558; Matter of Richard W., 174 A.D.2d 821).
The Family Court's finding of abuse is supported by a preponderance of the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing. In this matter, the petitioner presented the testimony of a validator who was qualified as an expert on child-sexual-abuse syndrome, which was to the effect that in an interview with Lisa, then 10 years old, Lisa told the validator that her father pulled her hair. Lisa indicated that her father touched the "inside" of her vagina with his finger. Moreover, a staff member of the Legal Aid Society testified that Lisa pointed to her vaginal area and then told her that her father touched her there. Furthermore, there was additional corroborative evidence offered through medical testimony that the child had a disruption at "three o'clock" and a generalized hymenal border thickening, which was consistent with digital penetration (see, Matter of Katrina W., 171 A.D.2d 250, appeal dismissed 79 N.Y.2d 976, cert denied sub nom. Rosalyn W. v Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs., ___ US ___, 121 L Ed 2d 156). With respect to Lisa's recantation, we do not find it undermined the credibility of her initial account to such an extent as to require dismissal of the proceeding. "A child's recantation is a common reaction among abused children" (Matter of Beverly WW., 159 A.D.2d 802). Thus, we find that the petitioner proved by a preponderance of evidence that the child was abused.
The father asserts that the Law Guardian's representation of Lisa S. presented a conflict of interest. Since the father did not raise this objection before Family Court, he failed to preserve the issue for appellate review (see, Matter of Matthew FF., 179 A.D.2d 928). In any event, the father's argument is without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and Miller, JJ., concur.