Opinion
2013-10-1
In re JANIYAH T., A Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Nyree T., Respondent–Appellant, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
Tennille M. Tatum–Evans, New York, for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Kathy H. Chang of counsel), for respondent.
Tennille M. Tatum–Evans, New York, for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Kathy H. Chang of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the child.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., MOSKOWITZ, RICHTER, MANZANET–DANIELS, GISCHE, JJ.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about April 11, 2012, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent neglected her child by failing to ensure that the child was not exposed to sexually explicit materials and by failing to secure an adequate evaluation after being advised of the child's extreme sexualized behaviors, placed the child in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services until completion of the next permanency hearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The findings of neglect based upon exposure to sexually explicit material and failure to provide appropriate care and supervision by refusing to take steps to protect the child from suspected sexual and physical abuse were sufficiently supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 117–119, 524 N.Y.S.2d 19, 518 N.E.2d 914 [1987]; Matter of Joshua J.P. [Deborah P.], 105 A.D.3d 552, 963 N.Y.S.2d 119 [1st Dept. 2013];Matter of Selena R. [Joseph L.], 81 A.D.3d 449, 450, 916 N.Y.S.2d 79 [1st Dept. 2011], lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 714, 2011 WL 1756793 [2011];Family Ct. Act §§ 1012[f][i]; 1046).
The child informed investigators that she had watched pornographic DVDs with the mother on multiple occasions, which statement was adequately corroborated by the psychologist's opinion that a child would not exhibit the extreme sexualized behavior at issue here, without having either learned, seen, or experienced it ( see Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d at 118–119, 524 N.Y.S.2d 19, 518 N.E.2d 914;Matter of Selena R., 81 A.D.3d at 450, 916 N.Y.S.2d 79;Matter of Shirley C.–M., 59 A.D.3d 360, 360–361, 873 N.Y.S.2d 616 [1st Dept. 2009] ).
Finally, the excessive corporal punishment count that was dismissed by the court is beyond the scope of this appeal because neither ACS nor the attorney for the child took an appeal from the subject order ( see Hecht v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 57, 61, 467 N.Y.S.2d 187, 454 N.E.2d 527 [1983];McHale v. Anthony, 41 A.D.3d 265, 266–267, 839 N.Y.S.2d 33 [1st Dept. 2007] ), and the mother was not aggrieved by that portion of the order ( see Segar v. Youngs, 45 N.Y.2d 568, 572–573, 410 N.Y.S.2d 801, 383 N.E.2d 103 [1978];Stark v. National City Bank, 278 N.Y. 388, 394, 16 N.E.2d 376 [1938] ).