Opinion
2011-10-11
In the Matter of ALEXANDER M. (Anonymous).Suffolk County Department of Social Services, petitioner-respondent;Benjamin M. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 1)In the Matter of Patrick W. (Anonymous).Suffolk County Department of Social Services, petitioner-respondent;Benjamin M. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 2).
Michael S. Bromberg, Sag Harbor, N.Y., for appellant.Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (James G. Bernet of counsel), for respondent.Richard M. Gold, Bohemia, N.Y., attorney for the child Alexander M.Diane B. Groom, Central Islip, N.Y., attorney for the child Patrick W.
In related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Benjamin M. appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Quinn, J.), dated October 19, 2010, which, after fact-finding
and dispositional hearings, found, inter alia, that he neglected the subject children and directed him to comply with an order of protection of the same court, also dated October 19, 2010.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In a child protective proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of proving neglect by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Ct. Act § 1046[b][i]; Matter of Philip M., 82 N.Y.2d 238, 604 N.Y.S.2d 40, 624 N.E.2d 168; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 N.Y.2d 1, 494 N.Y.S.2d 686, 484 N.E.2d 1038; Matter of Besthani M., 13 A.D.3d 452, 785 N.Y.S.2d 717). Here, contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court's finding of neglect based on the use of excessive corporal punishment is supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Family Ct. Act § 1012[f][i][B]; § 1046[b][i]; Matter of Chanyae S., 82 A.D.3d 1247, 924 N.Y.S.2d 793; Matter of Isaiah S., 63 A.D.3d 948, 880 N.Y.S.2d 528; Matter of Joshua B., 28 A.D.3d 759, 814 N.Y.S.2d 210; Matter of Joseph O., 28 A.D.3d 562, 813 N.Y.S.2d 213).
“[P]revious statements made by the child relating to any allegations of abuse or neglect shall be admissible in evidence, but if uncorroborated, such statements shall not be sufficient to make a fact-finding of abuse or neglect. Any other evidence tending to support the reliability of the previous statements ... shall be sufficient corroboration” (Family Ct. Act § 1046[a] [vi] ). The Family Court has considerable discretion to decide whether a child's out-of-court statements describing incidents of abuse have, in fact, been reliably corroborated and whether the record as a whole supports such a finding ( see Matter of Christina F., 74 N.Y.2d 532, 536, 549 N.Y.S.2d 643, 548 N.E.2d 1294; Matter of Besthani M., 13 A.D.3d at 453, 785 N.Y.S.2d 717).
Here, the subject children's out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated ( see Matter of Joshua B., 28 A.D.3d at 760–761, 814 N.Y.S.2d 210; Matter of Besthani M., 13 A.D.3d at 453, 785 N.Y.S.2d 717). Viewing the record as a whole, and according great deference to the Family Court's credibility determinations ( see Matter of Joseph O., 28 A.D.3d at 563, 813 N.Y.S.2d 213), we discern no basis to disturb the Family Court's finding of neglect ( see Matter of Joshua B., 28 A.D.3d at 761, 814 N.Y.S.2d 210).
ANGIOLILLO, J.P., DICKERSON, CHAMBERS and LOTT, JJ., concur.