| Matter of Aaliyah B. (Clarence B.) |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09572 [68 AD3d 1483] |
| December 24, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Aaliyah B., a Child Alleged to be Sexually Abusedand/or Neglected. Broome County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Clarence B.,Appellant, et al., Respondent. |
—[*1] Kuredin V. Eytina, Broome County Department of Social Services, Binghamton, for BroomeCounty Department of Social Services, respondent. Kathleen R. Insley, Law Guardian, Plattsburgh.
Cardona, P.J. Appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Broome County (Connerton,J.), entered December 4, 2008 and January 7, 2009, which granted petitioner's application, in aproceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to adjudicate Aaliyah B. to be a sexually abusedand/or neglected child.
Petitioner commenced this proceeding in February 2008 alleging that respondent Clarence B.(hereinafter the father) had sexually abused and neglected his daughter (born in 2000). Followinga fact-finding hearing, Family Court found the child to be sexually abused and neglected by thefather. Thereafter, the court issued a dispositional order and discharged the [*2]child to the custody of respondent Elaine C. (hereinafter themother).[FN*]The father appeals.
The father contends that the proof was insufficient to establish by a preponderance of theevidence that he sexually abused and/or neglected the child. Specifically, he challenges theout-of-court statements of the child—which allege that he touched the child's genital areaand had her perform fellatio on him—as uncorroborated and claims that the mother'stestimony was not credible. We disagree. Corroboration of a child's out-of-court statementsregarding incidents of sexual abuse or neglect "can be gleaned from any evidence tending tosupport the reliability of the statements" (Matter of Jessica Y., 206 AD2d 598, 600[1994]). Furthermore, Family Court is vested with considerable discretion in determiningwhether such statements have been reliably corroborated and whether the record supports afinding of abuse and/or neglect (see Matter of Christina F., 74 NY2d 532, 536 [1989];Matter of Caitlyn U., 46 AD3d 1144, 1145-1146 [2007]).
Here, the child's allegations of the sexual abuse were sufficiently corroborated by her swornin camera testimony detailing certain incidents of when, where and how the sexual abuseoccurred (see Matter of Sabrina M., 6 AD3d 759, 761 [2004]). The child was questionedand cross-examined, and Family Court was able to observe the child's demeanor to assess thereliability of the child's prior hearsay statements. In addition, the testimony from thecaseworkers regarding their interviews with the child, the mother and the father corroborated thechild's out-of-court statements. Specifically, the mother stated that, shortly before the child'sallegations of the sexually abusive conduct, the father informed her that it was a traditionalcustom in his cultural heritage for a father to take his daughter's virginity. The mother alsorelayed that she witnessed the father have the child touch his scrotum. Furthermore, the motherrecounted two separate occasions when the child slept with her parents—one, the mothersuspected the father of having sex with the child and, the other, the child woke in the morningwearing no underwear. Moreover, when the mother confronted the father aboutthe child's allegations of abuse, the father, although initially denying the allegations, ultimatelyadmitted to such conduct. In view of the foregoing, we find no abuse of discretion in FamilyCourt's conclusion that the child's out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated.Therefore, Family Court's finding that the father sexually abused and neglected the child wasamply supported by the record and, given the strong inference Family Court drew against thefather in light of his failure to testify (see Matter of Ian H., 42 AD3d 701, 703 [2007],lv denied 9 NY3d 814 [2007]), and according deference to the court's resolutions ofcredibility (see Matter of Brandi U., 47 AD3d 1103, 1104 [2008]), we find no basis todisturb its finding.
We have reviewed the father's remaining contention that permitting the child to testify incamera deprived him of his due process right of confrontation and find it to be unpersuasive.
Rose, Malone Jr., Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders are affirmed, withoutcosts.
Footnote *: The neglect petition was alsofiled against the mother, however, it was settled during the fact-finding hearing and she is not aparty to this appeal.