IN RE: JULIA M.M. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Melody Glover, J.), dated June 25, 2024.  The order of fact-finding and disposition, insofar as appealed from, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the father abused and neglected the subject child.

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

In November 2022, the Administration for Children's Services (hereinafter ACS) commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, alleging that the father sexually abused and neglected the subject child, who was born in 2014.  After a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found that the father sexually abused and neglected the child.  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 (see id. § 1046[b][i];  Matter of Chance F. [Roy F.], 238 A.D.3d 1037, 1037, 234 N.Y.S.3d 610).  “Great deference is given to the Family Court's credibility determinations, as it is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses having had the opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe their demeanor” (Matter of Jaretzy F. [Jesus F.-F.], 240 A.D.3d 892, 893, 236 N.Y.S.3d 317 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Yeimi M. [Atilio C.], 224 A.D.3d 836, 836–837, 205 N.Y.S.3d 463).

Here, ACS demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the father sexually abused and neglected the child (see Family Ct Act § 1012[e][iii];  [f][i][B];  Penal Law § 130.65[3] ).  The child's testimony as to multiple instances of sexual abuse by the father was sufficient to support a finding of abuse and neglect (see Matter of Yeimi M. [Atilio C.], 224 A.D.3d at 837, 205 N.Y.S.3d 463;  Matter of Ciniya P. [Omar S.W.], 217 A.D.3d 954, 955, 192 N.Y.S.3d 219).

Contrary to the father's contention, the child's in-court testimony did not require corroboration (see Matter of J.S. [M. Christian C.], 242 A.D.3d 680, 681, 242 N.Y.S.3d 625;  Matter of Kenyana D. [Kenneth D.], 229 A.D.3d 544, 545, 214 N.Y.S.3d 170).  Moreover, the child's testimony sufficiently corroborated her out-of-court descriptions of the abuse (see Matter of Tarahji N. [Bryan N.—Divequa C.], 197 A.D.3d 1317, 1319, 153 N.Y.S.3d 598;  Matter of Josue M. [Pascaul A.], 101 A.D.3d 1012, 1013, 955 N.Y.S.2d 658).

Contrary to the father's further contention, his intent to gain sexual gratification could be inferred from the nature of the conduct described by the child (see Penal Law § 130.00[3];  Matter of D.S. [Shaqueina W.], 147 A.D.3d 856, 857–858, 47 N.Y.S.3d 364).

The Family Court's credibility determinations are supported by the record and will not be disturbed on appeal (see Matter of Cherli Q. [Mauricio C.], 231 A.D.3d 833, 834, 220 N.Y.S.3d 109;  Matter of Ashlyn M. [Robert J.], 228 A.D.3d 939, 941, 214 N.Y.S.3d 138).

CONNOLLY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, VENTURA and GOLIA, JJ., concur.