IN RE: JASLENE P. (Anonymous). (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from three orders of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Ilana Gruebel, J.), all dated February 8, 2024.  The first order of fact-finding and disposition, insofar as appealed from, upon a decision of the same court dated February 8, 2024, made after a fact-finding hearing, and after a dispositional hearing, found that the father abused the child Janelle P. and directed the father to comply with the terms of an order of protection.  The second order of fact-finding and disposition, insofar as appealed from, upon the decision, and after the dispositional hearing, found that the father derivatively abused the child Jaslene P., and placed that child in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York until the completion of the next permanency hearing.  The third order of fact-finding and disposition, insofar as appealed from, upon the decision, and after the dispositional hearing, found that the father derivatively abused the child Janiece P., and placed that child in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York until the completion of the next permanency hearing.

ORDERED that the orders of fact-finding and disposition are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In August 2022, the petitioner filed three petitions, one as to each child, alleging, inter alia, that the father sexually abused the child Janelle P. and derivatively abused the children Jaslene P. and Janiece P. In three separate orders of fact-finding and disposition, all dated February 8, 2024, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, the Family Court found that the father abused Janelle P. and derivatively abused Jaslene P. and Janiece P. The court, among other things, placed Jaslene P. and Janiece P. in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York until the completion of the next permanency hearing.  Because Janelle P. had reached the age of majority, the court directed the father to comply with an order of protection.  The father appeals.

“At a fact-finding hearing in a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject child has been abused or neglected” (Matter of Esther R.-M.D. [Carry Q.], 232 A.D.3d 738, 740, 221 N.Y.S.3d 201 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Nyla S. [Jason B.], 224 A.D.3d 691, 692, 205 N.Y.S.3d 167).  “The Family Court's credibility findings are entitled to great weight” (Matter of Nyla S. [Jason B.], 224 A.D.3d at 692, 205 N.Y.S.3d 167;  see Matter of Esther R.-M.D. [Carry Q.], 232 A.D.3d at 740, 221 N.Y.S.3d 201).

“In neglect proceedings, [u]nsworn out-of-court statements of the [children] may be received and, if properly corroborated, will support a finding of abuse or neglect” (Matter of Jazlynn K. [Genesis S.], 231 A.D.3d 952, 954, 219 N.Y.S.3d 725 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Logan P. [Kendell P.], 228 A.D.3d 867, 868, 213 N.Y.S.3d 436).  “Corroboration means any other evidence tending to support the reliability of the previous statements” (Matter of Jazlynn K. [Genesis S.], 231 A.D.3d at 954, 219 N.Y.S.3d 725 [internal quotation marks omitted]).  “Siblings’ out-of-court statements may cross-corroborate each other when they independently and consistently describe similar incidents of abuse or neglect” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Alexander S. [Gabriel H.], 224 A.D.3d 907, 909, 206 N.Y.S.3d 341).

Here, contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court properly determined that Janelle P.’s out-of-court statements alleging abuse were corroborated by, inter alia, the testimony of her adult sister alleging “similar incidents” of sexual abuse committed by the father against her in a prior, unrelated proceeding (Matter of Alexander S. [Gabriel H.], 224 A.D.3d at 909, 206 N.Y.S.3d 341).  A preponderance of the evidence at the fact-finding hearing supported the court's finding of sexual abuse as to Janelle P. (see Matter of Brianna M. [Corbert G.], 152 A.D.3d 600, 602, 58 N.Y.S.3d 534).  The father's abuse of Janelle P. supported the court's finding of derivative abuse as to Jaslene P. and Janiece P. since it “evinced a flawed understanding of his duties as a person legally responsible for a child and impaired judgment sufficient to support a finding of derivative [abuse] as to the other children” (Matter of Alexander S. [Gabriel H.], 224 A.D.3d at 911, 206 N.Y.S.3d 341).

The father's remaining contentions are without merit.

CONNOLLY, J.P., CHAMBERS, VOUTSINAS and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.