Opinion
10-27-2015
In re DORLIS B., and Another, Children Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Dorge B., Respondent–Appellant, Dorge B., Respondent–Appellant, Commissioner of the Administration For the Children's Services, City of New York, Petitioner–Respondent, Julissa B., Respondent.
René Myatt, Hollis, for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Deborah A. Brenner of counsel), for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Michelle R. Duprey of counsel), attorney for the children.
René Myatt, Hollis, for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Deborah A. Brenner of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Michelle R. Duprey of counsel), attorney for the children.
Opinion Orders of fact-finding and disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sarah P. Cooper, J.), entered on or about February 5 and 6, 2013, respectively, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, determined, after a hearing, that respondent father sexually abused and neglected the eldest child, Dorlis B., and derivatively sexually abused and neglected the child's two siblings, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The Family Court's determination that respondent sexually abused and neglected the eldest child is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and the testimony of the child was not necessary to make a fact-finding of abuse or neglect (Family Ct. Act § 1046[a][vi], [b][i] ). The court properly found that the child's detailed out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated by the expert testimony of a child psychologist that the child suffered from depression, culminating in a suicide attempt, consistent with sexual abuse and not otherwise explained (see Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 121–122, 524 N.Y.S.2d 19, 518 N.E.2d 914 [1987] ; Matter of Estefania S. (Orlando S.), 114 A.D.3d 453, 979 N.Y.S.2d 582 [1st Dept.2014] ; Matter of Anahys V. [John V.], 68 A.D.3d 485, 891 N.Y.S.2d 34 [1st Dept.2009], lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 705, 2010 WL 1190455 [2010] ). The testimony of the guidance counselor concerning the child's behavior in school and consistent statements concerning the abuse, and the medical records and progress notes recording prior statements by the child, provided further corroboration. The Family Court was entitled to draw a negative inference against the father based on his failure to testify and offer an innocent explanation for his actions (Matter of Estefania S., at 454, 979 N.Y.S.2d 582 ).
The father's intent to gain sexual gratification was properly inferred from the acts themselves, absent any other explanation (Matter of Daniel R. [Lucille R.], 70 A.D.3d 839, 841, 894 N.Y.S.2d 165 [2d Dept.2010] ; Matter of Keisha McL., 261 A.D.2d 341, 342, 691 N.Y.S.2d 428 [1st Dept.1999] ).
TOM, J.P., RENWICK, ANDRIAS, MOSKOWITZ, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ. concur.