Opinion
06-20-2024
In the MATTER OF LOGAN P. (Anonymous).Administration for Children’s Services, respondent; v. Kendell P. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Liam P. (Anonymous). Administration for Children’s Services, respondent; v. Kendell P. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 2) In the Matter of Taylor M. P. (Anonymous). Administration for Children’s Services, respondent; v. Kendell P. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 3)
Lewis S. Calderon, Jamaica, NY, for appellant. Muriel Goode-Trufant, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Ingrid R. Gustafson and Karin Wolfe of counsel), for respondent. Ronna L. DeLoe, Larchmont, NY, attorney for the children.
Lewis S. Calderon, Jamaica, NY, for appellant.
Muriel Goode-Trufant, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Ingrid R. Gustafson and Karin Wolfe of counsel), for respondent.
Ronna L. DeLoe, Larchmont, NY, attorney for the children.
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P., LARA J. GENOVESI, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, LOURDES M. VENTURA, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Ben Darvil, Jr., J.), dated February 28, 2023. The order of fact-finding and disposition, insofar as appealed from, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the father neglected the subject children.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
In December 2021, the Administration for Children’s Services (hereinafter ACS) commenced these related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 against the father, alleging that he neglected the subject children by committing an act of domestic violence against the non-respondent mother while in an elevator with the children present. Following a fact-finding hearing, at which ACS relied on the children’s out-of-court statements to an ACS caseworker, the Family Court found that the father neglected the children. The father appeals.
[1, 2] " ‘A finding of neglect is proper where a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the child’s physical, mental, or emotional condition was impaired or was in danger of becoming impaired by the parent’s commission of an act, or acts, of domestic violence in the child’s presence’ " (Matter of Bronx S. [Denzel J.], 217 A.D.3d 956, 957, 192 N.Y.S.3d 167, quoting Matter of Kiara C. [David C.], 85 A.D.3d 1025, 1026, 926 N.Y.S.2d 566). "Even a single act of domestic violence, either in the presence of a child or within the hearing of a child, may be sufficient for a neglect finding" (Matter of Abdul R. [Abdul G.], 225 A.D.3d 881, 882, 208 N.Y.S.3d 250; see Matter of Roland M. [Manuel M.], 224 A.D.3d 903, 904-905, 206 N.Y.S.3d 171).
[3, 4] "In neglect proceedings, ‘[u]nsworn out-of-court statements of the [children] may be received and, if properly corroborated, will support a finding of abuse or neglect’ " (Matter of Silveris P. [Meuris P.], 198 A.D.3d 787, 789, 156 N.Y.S.3d 281, quoting Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 117-118, 524 N.Y.S.2d 19, 518 N.E.2d 914). " ‘The Family Court, as the trier of fact, has considerable discretion in determining whether the child[ren]’s statements are sufficiently corroborated and whether the record as a whole supports a finding of [neglect]’ " (Matter of Silveris P. [Meuris P.], 198 A.D.3d at 789, 156 N.Y.S.3d 281, quoting Matter of Neleh B. [Quincy J.], 162 A.D.3d 1007, 1009, 80 N.Y.S.3d 151).
[5] Here, a preponderance of admissible evidence supported a finding that the children’s physical, mental, or emotional conditions were impaired or in imminent danger of impairment by the father’s commission of an act of domestic violence against the mother in the presence of the children (see Matter of Abdul R. [Abdul G.], 225 A.D.3d at 882, 208 N.Y.S.3d 250; Matter of Bronx S. [Denzel J.], 217 A.D.3d at 957,192 N.Y.S.3d 167). Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the children’s out-of-court statements to an ACS caseworker that the father hit or punched the mother in the elevator and that the children felt scared and were crying reliably cross-corroborated one another (see Matter of Divine K.M. [Andre. G.], 211 A.D.3d 733, 735, 179 N.Y.S.3d 714; Matter of Silveris P, [Meuris P.], 198 A.D.3d at 789, 156 N.Y.S.3d 281).
The father’s remaining contention is improperly raised for the first time on appeal and, in any event, without merit.
CONNOLLY, J.P., GENOVESI, DOWLING and VENTURA, JJ., concur.