Hyperlawhypertext legal database In re Arcis A.R.-M. 148 A.D.3d 1156

← Cases

In re Arcis A.R.-M.

148 A.D.3d 1156 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 2017-03-29 English

Judges Eng, P.J., Hall, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Contents

Majority

p. 1156
In the Matter of Arcis A.R.-M. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Alton T.Y., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Andy J.R.-M. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Alton T.Y., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)
[49 NYS3d 760]

Appeal from an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Caren Loguercio, J.), dated February 9, 2016. The order, after a hearing, found that the appellant sexually abused the child Arcis A. R.-M., and derivatively neglected the child Andy J. R.-M.

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

The petitioner, Suffolk County Department of Social Services, filed petitions alleging that the appellant sexually abused his stepdaughter, Arcis A. R.-M., and derivatively neglected his stepson, Andy J. R.-M., based on his sexual abuse of Arcis A. R.-M. After a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court issued an order of fact-finding dated February 9, 2016, finding that the appellant had sexually abused Arcis A. R.-M. and that he derivatively neglected Andy J. R.-M.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court’s

p. 1157
finding that he sexually abused the child Arcis A. R.-M. is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [e] [iii]; 1046 [b] [i]; Penal Law § 130.55). The testimony of the petitioner’s expert witness, who was an expert in the field of child abuse, and the out-of-court statements of Andy J. R.-M. to the caseworkers, provided sufficient corroboration to support the reliability of Arcis A. R.-M.’s out-of-court statements regarding the appellant’s sexual abuse of her (see Matter of Angel R. [Syheid R.], 136 AD3d 1041 , 1041 [2016]).

Further, the appellant’s sexual abuse of Arcis A. R.-M. evinced a flawed understanding of his duties as a parent and impaired parental judgment sufficient to support the Family Court’s finding of derivative neglect of Andy J. R.-M. (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]; Matter of Sha-Naya M.S.C. [Derrick C.], 130 AD3d 719 , 721 [2015]; Matter of Trenasia J. [Frank J.], 107 AD3d 992 , 993-994 [2013]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Eng, P.J., Hall, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cases cited