Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: SHIRLEY also known as Cheryl C.-M. and Another, Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Jose M., Respondent-Appellant, The Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about September 25, 2007, which, after a fact-finding determination that respondent father sexually 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 another daughter was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (Family Court Act §§ 1012[e][iii], 1012[f][i][B], 1046[b][i] ). The daughter's out-of-court statements were corroborated by a child sexual abuse expert, who, after evaluating the child, concluded that she had been abused. Such corroboration included assessing the child's demeanor, intelligence, memory, language, the consistency of her statements, and the child's description and demonstration of the father's actions (see In re Pearl M., 44 A.D.3d 348, 349, 843 N.Y.S.2d 47 [2007] ). The expert also ruled out two rival explanations for the daughter's claim of abuse, that she was coached, prompted or prepped to provide her statements, and that she invented the claim on her own as a means of removing her father from her house. No basis exists to disturb Family Court's findings of credibility (see In re Nasir J., 35 A.D.3d 299, 827 N.Y.S.2d 41 [2006] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 26, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)