| Matter of Emily I. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02915 [50 AD3d 1181] |
| April 3, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Emily I., a Child Alleged to be Abused. St.Lawrence County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Amy J.,Appellant. |
—[*1] David D. Willer, St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services, Canton, forrespondent. Joseph T. Welch, Law Guardian, Massena.
Lahtinen, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of St. Lawrence County (Potter, J.),entered April 17, 2006, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to FamilyCt Act article 10, to adjudicate respondent's child to be abused.
In November 2004, respondent, the mother of Emily I. (born in 2000), became angry with thechild's father when he told her that reconciliation of their fractured relationship was not feasible.She approached the father with a handgun as he was holding the child in his arms and threatenedto shoot him, stating that she planned to carry through on the threat even if it meant the childwould be harmed. Shortly thereafter and while he was still holding the child, respondent shot andseriously injured the father. She was charged with the crimes of attempted murder and recklessendangerment. Also, petitioner commenced this proceeding alleging abuse. Respondentrequested that the hearing on the abuse proceeding be adjourned until after the criminal caseagainst her had been resolved so she could freely testify at the abuse hearing. Family Courtdenied the request and, following a hearing, found the child to be abused by [*2]respondent. Respondent appeals.
We affirm. It is within the discretion of Family Court whether to permit an abuse petition toproceed despite the pendency of a criminal action against the respondent and the concomitantchilling effect the pending criminal action may have on the respondent's decision whether totestify in the abuse proceeding (see Matter of Germaine B., 86 AD2d 847, 848 [1982];see also Matter of Gladys H., 235 AD2d 841, 843 [1997]; Matter of Derra G.,232 AD2d 211, 211-212 [1996]; Matter of New York City Commr. of Social Servs. vElminia E., 134 AD2d 501, 502 [1987]). There is a general policy in favor of resolving anabuse proceeding expeditiously (see Family Ct Act § 1049; Matter of JosephDD., 300 AD2d 760, 762 n 6 [2002], lv denied 100 NY2d 504 [2003]; Matter ofMaria L., 152 AD2d 466, 467 [1989]; cf. Matter of Beverly SS., 132 AD2d 825, 827[1987]). We are unpersuaded that Family Court abused its discretion in concluding that furtherdelay of this proceeding would not be in the child's best interest. We also note that Family Courtdid not draw a negative inference from respondent's decision not to testify (see Matter ofDerra G., 232 AD2d at 212).
Mercure, J.P., Spain, Rose and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.