IN RE: ARIANA R. (Anonymous). (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals, and the maternal grandfather separately appeals, from (1) an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Queens County (Monica D. Shulman, J.), dated February 25, 2025, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court dated February 26, 2025.  The order of fact-finding, insofar as appealed from by the father, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the father abused the child Ariana R. and derivatively abused the children Nikai R. and Phoenix R. The order of fact-finding, insofar as appealed from by the maternal grandfather, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the maternal grandfather abused the child Ariana R. and derivatively abused the children Nikai R. and Phoenix R. The order of disposition, insofar as appealed from by the father and the maternal grandfather, after a dispositional hearing, was entered upon the order of fact-finding.

ORDERED that the appeals from the order of fact-finding are dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the order of fact-finding was superseded by the order of disposition and is brought up for review on the appeals from the order of disposition;  and it is further,

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

The Administration for Children's Services (hereinafter ACS) commenced these related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, alleging, inter alia, that the child Ariana R. was sexually abused in separate incidents by her father and her maternal grandfather, and that, as a result, the father and the maternal grandfather derivatively abused two of her siblings.  After a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found that the maternal grandfather was a person legally responsible for the children, that the father and the maternal grandfather sexually abused Ariana R., and that they derivatively abused two of her siblings.  The father appeals, and the maternal grandfather separately 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 children have 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 and the maternal grandfather sexually abused Ariana R. (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012[e][iii];  1046[b][i];  Penal Law § 130.52[1] ).  Ariana R.'s testimony concerning the separate incidents of sexual abuse by the father and the maternal grandfather was sufficient to support findings of abuse against each of them (see Matter of Julia M.M. [Luis V.], 247 A.D.3d 769, 770, 253 N.Y.S.3d 239;  Matter of Ciniya P. [Omar S.W.], 217 A.D.3d 954, 955, 192 N.Y.S.3d 219).  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).

Contrary to the father's contention, based on the totality of the circumstances, the Family Court appropriately inferred the father's intent to gain sexual gratification from his conduct (see Matter of Ashlyn M. [Robert J.], 228 A.D.3d at 941, 214 N.Y.S.3d 138;  Matter of Vered L. [Yoshi S.], 205 A.D.3d 1028, 1030, 166 N.Y.S.3d 891).

Moreover, the Family Court correctly concluded that the father and the maternal grandfather derivatively abused Ariana R.'s siblings.  A finding of abuse of one child does not, by itself, establish that other children in the household have been derivatively abused or neglected (see Matter of Daisy N. [Mario M.], 244 A.D.3d 857, 858, 246 N.Y.S.3d 469).  However, the evidence at the fact-finding hearing demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, a fundamental defect in the father's understanding of his duties as a parent, and the maternal grandfather's understanding of his duties as a person legally responsible for the children, and such an impaired level of judgment as to create a substantial risk for any child in their care, such that an adjudication of derivative abuse with respect to the other children was warranted (see Matter of Davena A. [Christopher A.], 232 A.D.3d 595, 597, 220 N.Y.S.3d 824).

The father's and the maternal grandfather's remaining contentions are without merit.

DUFFY, J.P., IANNACCI, WOOTEN and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.