In re Angelina AA.
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; January 18, 1995; New York; State Appellate Court
An appeal was made by respondent Peters from a Family Court order that adjudicated his children, Angelina, Joseph, and Alice, as abused and/or neglected. The proceedings were initiated in October 1992 following a hotline report from the children’s mother, made shortly after the respondent gained custody of the children. Following a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court determined that respondent sexually abused Angelina and found Joseph and Alice to be neglected derivatively. At the dispositional hearing, the court placed the children with their mother for one year. The respondent's appeal argued against the findings of abuse and neglect, contesting the weight given to petitioner’s witnesses and the handling of the Law Guardian’s report. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s findings, emphasizing the deference given to lower court determinations that are based on direct observations of witnesses. While the mother’s testimony contained inconsistencies, the court found sufficient evidence to support the abuse findings, including corroborated statements from Angelina. The requirement for corroborative evidence regarding the identity of an abuser was deemed unnecessary, as Angelina consistently identified respondent as her abuser. Respondent argued that the sexual abuse of one child does not automatically imply neglect of the others; however, the court found that respondent’s actions demonstrated impaired judgment, creating a substantial risk of harm to all children. The Family Court also appropriately denied the Law Guardian's testimony regarding Angelina’s statements, as there was no waiver of privilege. Finally, respondent contested the Family Court's decision to place the children with their mother. The court had modified its earlier order and granted respondent temporary custody under the supervision of his wife. The appeal was ultimately deemed moot due to this modification. The Family Court's order was affirmed in its entirety without costs.