IN RE: SIVEY U. (Anonymous). (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Queens County (Emily Ruben, J.), dated May 2, 2025.  The order of fact-finding, after a hearing, found that the mother neglected the subject child.

ORDERED that the order of fact-finding is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner, Administration for Children's Services (hereinafter ACS), commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, alleging that the mother failed to provide the subject child with proper supervision or guardianship by inflicting excessive corporal punishment on her.  After a fact-finding hearing, in an order of fact-finding, the Family Court determined that the mother neglected the child by inflicting excessive corporal punishment on her.  The mother appeals.

The appeal from the order of fact-finding was not rendered academic by reason of the mother's subsequent execution of a surrender of the child, since that adjudication constitutes a permanent and significant stigma that might indirectly affect the mother's status in future proceedings (see Matter of Jamiar W. [Malipeng W.], 84 A.D.3d 1386, 1386–1387, 924 N.Y.S.2d 553;  Matter of Albert Francis B., 66 A.D.3d 769, 770, 887 N.Y.S.2d 201).

“In a child neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject child is neglected” (Matter of Moshae L. [Angela J.], 237 A.D.3d 821, 822–823, 230 N.Y.S.3d 399 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Family Ct Act § 1046[b][i];  Matter of Shayla G. [Lakisha C.], 233 A.D.3d 682, 684, 222 N.Y.S.3d 157).  To establish neglect of a child, the petitioner must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, (1) that the child's physical, mental, or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired, and (2) that the actual or threatened harm to the child is a consequence of the failure of the parent or caretaker to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012[f][i][B], 1046[b][1];  Matter of Moshae L. [Angela J.], 237 A.D.3d at 823, 230 N.Y.S.3d 399).  “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 Ashlyn M. [Robert J.], 228 A.D.3d 939, 941, 214 N.Y.S.3d 138 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

In neglect proceedings, unsworn out-of-court statements of a child may be received and, if properly corroborated, will support a finding of abuse or neglect (see Family Ct Act § 1046[a][vi];  Matter of Nathaniel I.G. [Marilyn A.P.], 227 A.D.3d 806, 807, 210 N.Y.S.3d 486;  Matter of Thaddeus R. [Gabrielle V.], 198 A.D.3d 901, 902, 156 N.Y.S.3d 305).  “Corroboration means any other evidence tending to support the reliability of the previous statements” (Matter of Nathaniel I.G. [Marilyn A.P.], 227 A.D.3d at 807, 210 N.Y.S.3d 486 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Family Ct Act § 1046[a][vi] ).  “The rule requiring corroboration is flexible, and any other evidence tending to support the reliability of the out-of-court statements is a determination for the Family Court, which saw and heard the witnesses” (Matter of Thaddeus R. [Gabrielle V.], 198 A.D.3d at 902, 156 N.Y.S.3d 305 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Nathaniel I.G. [Marilyn A.P.], 227 A.D.3d at 807, 210 N.Y.S.3d 486).

“Although parents have a right to use reasonable physical force against a child in order to maintain discipline or to promote the child's welfare, the use of excessive corporal punishment constitutes neglect” (Matter of Moshae L. [Angela J.], 237 A.D.3d at 823, 230 N.Y.S.3d 399 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Family Ct Act § 1012[f][1][B];  Matter of Alexander S. [Gabriel H.], 224 A.D.3d 907, 910, 206 N.Y.S.3d 341).  “A single incident of excessive corporal punishment may suffice to sustain a finding of neglect” (Matter of Thaddeus R. [Gabrielle V.], 198 A.D.3d at 902, 156 N.Y.S.3d 305 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Nathaniel I.G. [Marilyn A.P.], 227 A.D.3d at 807, 210 N.Y.S.3d 486).

Here, the Family Court properly determined that ACS established by a preponderance of the evidence that the mother neglected the child by inflicting excessive corporal punishment on her (see Matter of Moshae L. [Angela J.], 237 A.D.3d at 822–823, 824, 230 N.Y.S.3d 399;  Matter of Raveena B. [Khrisend R.], 209 A.D.3d 640, 642, 175 N.Y.S.3d 340).  Deferring to the hearing court's credibility findings, the evidence at the fact-finding hearing established that the mother had repeatedly physically, verbally, and emotionally abused the child and, on one occasion, had bitten the child's finger, leaving an infected human bite mark that was visible to an ACS caseworker three days later (see Matter of Nathaniel I.G. [Marilyn A.P.], 227 A.D.3d at 807, 210 N.Y.S.3d 486).  Contrary to the mother's contention, out-of-court statements of the child were sufficiently corroborated by medical records and observations of the ACS caseworker (see Matter of Nathaniel I.G. [Marilyn A.P.], 227 A.D.3d at 807, 210 N.Y.S.3d 486;  Matter of Thaddeus R. [Gabrielle V.], 198 A.D.3d at 902, 156 N.Y.S.3d 305).

The mother's remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court.

CONNOLLY, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, WARHIT and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.