Child's Stricken Family Court Testimony Can Be Considered in Later Abuse Hearing, Appeals Court Rules
The then-14-year-old had refused to continue with her sexual abuse-allegations testimony at a custody-related hearing after she'd been cross-examined for three days by the alleged abuser's counsel, according to the appeals court.
March 18, 2019 at 04:49 PM
4 minute read
A child's stricken Family Court sexual-abuse testimony from a custody-related hearing can still be considered in a separate hearing focused on whether the alleged abuse actually happened, provided there is corroboration of the testimony, a state appeals court has ruled.
An Appellate Division, First Department panel has ruled that a 2016 fact-finding order by a Bronx Family Court justice that said Jesus O. had sexually abused minor Ashley F. must be affirmed, turning back Jesus O.'s appeal.
The unanimous panel wrote in its decision that it had considered the issue of whether a child's testimony stricken from a hearing pursuant to Family Court Act Section 1028—which focuses on whether a child temporarily removed should be returned to a guardian—may be considered in connection with a fact-finding hearing regarding abuse allegations, pursuant to Family Court Act Section 1046(a)(vi). The panel wrote that “it may be so used.” (Family Court Act Section 1046(a)(vi) addresses the admissibility of previous statements made by the child relating to allegations of abuse or neglect. Family Court Act Section 1046, more broadly, addresses evidence issues in abuse and neglect hearings.)
Turning its attention to the sexual abuse allegations made by Ashley F., the panel explained that Family Court Act Section 1046(a)(vi) provides in part that “'previous statements made by the child relating to any allegations of abuse or neglect shall be admissible in evidence,' when corroborated, and '[t]he testimony of the child shall not be necessary to make a fact-finding of abuse or neglect.'”
In Ashley F.'s case, wrote the panel, the then-14-year-old had refused to continue with her sexual abuse testimony at an FCA 1028 hearing—meaning a hearing addressing whether a temporarily removed child should be returned to a guardian—after she'd already been cross-examined for three days by Jesus O.'s counsel.
At a later 2016 fact-finding hearing focused on whether the sexual abuse happened, Bronx Family Court Justice Valerie Pels ruled that Jesus O. had sexually abused Ashley F. and had derivatively abused Jaylyn Z., Destiny O., Jaydyan O., Maci O. and Hevenly O., the panel noted. The panel further indicated that Pels had used Ashley F.'s FCA 1028 testimony regarding the alleged abuse in her fact-finding.
“We agree with the Family Court that it could rely upon Ashley's incomplete testimony for the purposes of the subsequent fact-finding hearing, subject to a statutory requirement of corroboration,” panel Justices Rosalyn Richter, Judith Gische, Cynthia Kern and Peter Moulton wrote.
“The use of Ashley's incomplete testimony was in accordance with the legislative intent of Family Ct Act Section 1046(a)(vi) to address 'the reluctance or inability of victims to testify,'” the justices said, citing Matter of Nicole V.
They then pointed out that “significantly, during the fact-finding hearing, the allegations of sexual abuse were corroborated by testimony from Ashley's therapist, who stated that Ashley disclosed that [Jesus O.] sexually abused her, and expressed symptoms and behaviors” consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder and other abuse symptoms.
Moreover, a supervising psychologist testified and confirmed Ashley's diagnosis of PTSD, sexual abuse and neglect.
“Such expert testimony was sufficient to support a finding of sexual abuse … and we see no reason to disturb the findings of derivative abuse as to the other children,” the justices wrote in their March 14 opinion.
The panel's ruling addressed a 2017 order of disposition by Pels, in that that order brought up for review her 2016 fact-finding order, the decision indicated.
Roshell Amezcua of The Bronx Defenders represented Jesus O., and did not respond to a request for comment. Claire Merkine of the The Legal Aid Society represented Ashley F. The Legal Aid Society did not respond to a request for comment.
The city Law Department was counsel for the Administration for Children's Services. The Law Department declined to comment.
Steven Feinman, an attorney in White Plains, represented Jaylyn Z., Hevenly O., Jaydan O., Destiny O. and Maci O., the decision said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDecision of the Day: Split Circuit Panel Bars Enforcement of Ivory Law's 'Display Restriction' on Antique Group Members
Decision of the Day: Judge Precludes Ballistics Expert's Opinion on Scene for 2016 Fatal Police Shooting
Decision of the Day: Contingency Fee to Counsel Result of Successful Advocacy, Not Windfall
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250