| Matter of Caitlyn U. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01473 [48 AD3d 934] |
| February 21, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Caitlyn U. and Others, Children Alleged to beAbused and/or Neglected. Albany County Department for Children, Youth and Families,Respondent; Brian V., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Caitlyn U. and Others,Children Alleged to be Abused and/or Neglected. Albany County Department for Children,Youth and Families, Respondent; Diane V., Appellant. (Proceeding No.2.) |
—[*1] Paul J. Connolly, Delmar, for Diane V., appellant. Joseph Alund, Albany County Department for Children, Youth and Families, Albany, forrespondent. Tracey Brown, Law Guardian, Clifton Park.
Rose, J. Appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Albany County (Walsh, J.), enteredMay 2, 2007, which granted petitioner's applications, in two proceedings pursuant to Family CtAct article 10, to adjudicate the subject children to be abused and/or neglected.
As described more fully in our decision of respondents' appeals from the fact-finding order inthese proceedings (Matter of CaitlynU., 46 AD3d 1144 [2007]), petitioner commenced these proceedings against respondentBrian V., the stepfather of Caitlyn U. (born in 1992) and the father of her two younger sisters,and respondent Diane V., the mother of all three children, based on evidence that the stepfatherhad sexually abused Caitlyn and the mother failed to protect her from such abuse. Following thedispositional hearing and based on its prior findings of abuse and neglect, Family Court placedrespondents under the supervision of petitioner for a period of one year, required the stepfather tocomplete sex offender treatment and ordered that respondents comply with orders of protectionwhich preclude the stepfather from residing with the children, prohibit any contact with Caitlynexcept in a therapeutic setting and require the mother to supervise the stepfather's visits with theother two children. Respondents appeal.
Given that Family Court found sexual abuse and that finding is supported by the evidence(see id.), the court had the authority to issue a dispositional order placing respondentsunder the supervision of petitioner and requiring the stepfather to complete sex offendertreatment (see Family Ct Act §§ 1052, 1057; Matter of Amanda SS.,284 AD2d 588, 589 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 606 [2001]; Matter of MalindaV., 221 AD2d 549, 550 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 811 [1996]; 22 NYCRR 205.83[a] [5]; [b] [l]). This is true regardless of whether the treatment program may require thestepfather to acknowledge that the sexual abuse occurred (compare Matter of Selena L.,289 AD2d 35, 37 [2001]). Family Court's issuance of orders of protection also was authorized(see Family Ct Act § 1056), and we find no abuse of the court's discretion ineffectively prohibiting the stepfather from residing with the children given that he has notacknowledged the past abuse, the mother still believes him to be innocent and she failed toprotect Caitlyn from him when they resided together in the past (see Matter of CatherineP., 269 AD2d 702, 703 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 751 [2000]; Matter ofChristopher O., 211 AD2d [*2]980, 981 [1995]; Matter ofNichole B., 175 AD2d 205, 205-206 [1991]). Nor was there an abuse of discretion in FamilyCourt's denial of supervised visitation with Caitlyn without some additional assurance, such asthe completion of sex offender treatment, that the stepfather would not pose a risk to Caitlyn'ssafety.
Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders areaffirmed, without costs.