| Matter of Shirley C.-M. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01418 [59 AD3d 360] |
| February 26, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Shirley C.-M., Also Known as Cheryl C.-M., andAnother, Children Alleged to be Abused and Neglected. Jose M., Appellant; Administration forChildren's Services, Respondent. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Susan B. Eisner of counsel), forrespondent. Tamara A. Steckler, Esq., The Legal Aid Society, New York (Claire V. Merkine of counsel),Law Guardian.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on orabout September 25, 2007, which, after a fact-finding determination that respondent fathersexually abused his child Shirley C.-M and derivatively neglected his child Melanie C.-M,released the subject children to the custody of their mother, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding that the father sexually abused one daughter and derivatively neglected anotherdaughter was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act § 1012 [e][iii]; [f] [i] [B]; § 1046 [b] [i]). The daughter's out-of-court statements were corroboratedby a child sexual abuse expert, who, after evaluating the child, concluded that she had beenabused. Such corroboration included assessing the child's demeanor, intelligence, memory,language, the consistency of her statements, and the child's description and demonstration of thefather's actions (see Matter of PearlM., 44 AD3d 348, 349 [2007]). The expert also ruled out two rival explanations for thedaughter's claim of abuse, that she was coached, prompted or prepped to provide her statements,and that she invented the [*2]claim on her own as a means ofremoving her father from her house. No basis exists to disturb Family Court's findings ofcredibility (see Matter of Nasir J.,35 AD3d 299 [2006]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli, Buckley and DeGrasse,JJ.