Opinion
1142 Dkt. No. NN-10405/21 Case No. 2023–00498
12-05-2023
In the MATTER OF L.H.R., a Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Y.L., Respondent–Appellant, v. Q.L.R., Respondent, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant. Sylvia O. Hinds–Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jeremy Pepper of counsel), for respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (John A. Newbery of counsel), attorney for the child.
Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant.
Sylvia O. Hinds–Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jeremy Pepper of counsel), for respondent.
Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (John A. Newbery of counsel), attorney for the child.
Kern, J.P., Gesmer, Moulton, Kennedy, Higgitt, JJ.
Order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper), Family Court, Bronx County (David J. Kaplan, J.), entered on or about December 8, 2022, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, after a hearing, determined that respondent mother neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
A preponderance of the evidence supports Family Court's finding that the mother neglected the child by inflicting excessive corporal punishment on her. The child's out-of-court statements that the mother became angry, grabbed the child by the hair, pulled her across the room, and choked her, causing cuts and bruises, and threatened her with scissors, were corroborated by the testimony of the Administration for Children's Services (ACS) caseworker that she observed and photographed the child's injuries to her arm, knee, elbow, and face (see Matter of Empress B. [Henrietta L.], 204 A.D.3d 562, 563, 165 N.Y.S.3d 298 [1st Dept. 2022] ). That the child's injuries resulted from only one incident does not preclude a finding of excessive corporal punishment ( id. at 563, 165 N.Y.S.3d 298 ). Further, the court credited the caseworker's testimony and found the mother's testimony to be self-serving, and there is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations (see Matter of Syeda A. [Syed I.], 186 A.D.3d 1145, 1146, 131 N.Y.S.3d 14 [1st Dept. 2020] ), which are entitled to great deference on appeal ( Matter of Any G. v. Ayman H., 208 A.D.3d 1097, 1098, 175 N.Y.S.3d 25 [1st Dept. 2022] ). Regardless of whether the mother had a valid reason for disciplining the child, her response went beyond any common-law right to use reasonable force to discipline her child (see Matter of Desiree D. [Iris D.], 209 A.D.3d 547, 548, 176 N.Y.S.3d 42 [1st Dept. 2022] ).
We have considered the mother's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.