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: E.H. and another, A Children Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., M.H., Respondent–Appellant, v. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent–Respondent.
Order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper) of the Family Court, Bronx County (David J. Kaplan, J.), entered on or about December 21, 2021, insofar as it determined, after a hearing, that respondent sexually abused the subject eldest child and derivatively abused the subject younger child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Family Court's determination that respondent sexually abused the eldest child is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act § 1046[a][vi]; [b][i]). The court properly determined that the child's statements to the hospital staff at Four Winds and Dr. Khan were independently admissible and did not require corroboration because they were relevant to her treatment, diagnosis and discharge (see People v. Parada, 67 A.D.3d 581, 582, 889 N.Y.S.2d 159 [1st Dept. 2009] [child's statements contained in medical records, were sufficiently related to diagnosis and treatment to be admissible]; see also People v. Ortega, 15 N.Y.3d 610, 619, 917 N.Y.S.2d 1, 942 N.E.2d 210 [2010]). In any event, the child's out-of-court statements were properly corroborated by the testimony of the ACS caseworker, her treating therapist, her medical records, and by the expert testimony of a child psychologist that the child suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder culminating in a suicide attempt, consistent with sexual abuse and not otherwise explained (see Matter of Dorlis B. [Dorge B.], 132 A.D.3d 578, 18 N.Y.S.3d 327 [1st Dept. 2015]; Matter of Estefania S. [Orlando S.], 114 A.D.3d 453, 979 N.Y.S.2d 582 [1st Dept. 2014]).
Respondent's sexual abuse of the eldest child supports a finding of derivative abuse with respect to the younger child since it demonstrates that his understanding of his parental obligations is so defective as to place her at substantial risk, particularly since the younger child was present in the same room when the abuse occurred (see Matter of Maria S. [Angel A.], 185 A.D.3d 437, 124 N.Y.S.3d 792 [1st Dept. 2020]; Matter of Krystal N. [Juan R.], 193 A.D.3d 602, 142 N.Y.S.3d 808 [1st Dept. 2021]; Matter of Brandon M. [Luis M.], 94 A.D.3d 520, 942 N.Y.S.2d 79 [1st Dept. 2012]).
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.
Docket No: 16531
Decided: October 25, 2022
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)