| Matter of Andrew W. (Randolph A.W.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02891 [83 AD3d 727] |
| April 5, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In In the Matter of Andrew W. Administration for Children'sServices, Respondent; Randolph A.W., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In theMatter of Pricilla W. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Randolph A.W.,Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Michael W. Administrationfor Children's Services, Respondent; Randolph A.W., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (ProceedingNo. 3.) |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow ofcounsel; Alyse P. Fiori on the brief), for petitioner-respondent. Dean Kusakabe, Forest Hills, N.Y., Attorney for the Children.
In three related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, thefather appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of disposition of the FamilyCourt, Queens County (Richardson-Mendelson, J.), dated March 1, 2010, as, upon a fact-findingorder of the same court dated December 1, 2009, made after a hearing, finding that he abusedPricilla W., and derivatively neglected Andrew W. and Michael W., placed the children in thecustody of the Administration for Children's Services. The appeal brings up for review thefact-finding order dated December 1, 2009.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
Contrary to the father's contention, the petitioner established by a preponderance of [*2]the evidence that he sexually abused his daughter (seeFamily Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Liza O., 47 AD3d 632 [2008]). Thedaughter's out-of-court account of the abuse was corroborated both by her brother's out-of-courtaccount as a witness to the abuse, and by the testimony of an expert in clinical and forensicpsychology, with a specialization in child abuse, who evaluated the children (see Matter ofNicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 120-121 [1987]; Matter of Tristan R., 63 AD3d 1075, 1076-1077 [2009]).Moreover, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in drawing a negative inferenceagainst the father for his failure to testify on his own behalf (see Matter of Tajani B., 49 AD3d 876, 877 [2008]).
The evidence that the father sexually abused his daughter evinced his flawed understandingof the duties of a parent and impaired parental judgment sufficiently to support the FamilyCourt's finding that her two brothers were derivatively neglected (see Matter of Grant W. [Raphael A.],67 AD3d 922 [2009]). Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.