1. Introduction

This Article 10 child protective proceeding arose from a hotline report alleging sexual abuse of the younger of two children (born 2021), with the older child (born 2020) implicated through derivative neglect. The Delaware County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed petitions alleging abuse and neglect against both parents. The mother admitted neglect based on inadequate supervision given her knowledge that the father was a convicted sex offender. After a fact-finding hearing, Family Court found that the father sexually abused the younger child by committing sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65) and derivatively neglected the older child.

On appeal, the father argued that DSS failed to meet its prima facie burden by a preponderance of the evidence. The Third Department affirmed, emphasizing (i) medical testimony describing genital injury indicative of penetrating trauma within a tight timeframe, (ii) caretaker access, (iii) the statutory/Article 10 burden-shifting framework for injuries not ordinarily occurring absent abuse, and (iv) the negative inference Family Court was permitted to draw from the father’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment at the fact-finding hearing.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Third Department held that DSS proved sexual abuse of the younger child by a preponderance of the evidence and that Family Court’s findings had a sound and substantial basis in the record. It relied on: the daycare teacher’s observations of bruising and pain-avoidant behavior during diapering; the mother’s admissions about the father’s diapering practices and sleep arrangements; and the pediatric SANE’s expert testimony identifying a perihymenal healing injury consistent with acute penetrating trauma (and inconsistent with a fall) likely occurring 12–24 hours before examination.

The court further held that the father’s sexual abuse of the very young child supported derivative neglect of the older child, reflecting impaired parental judgment and an inability to protect any child in his care. The order adjudicating abuse (younger child) and derivative neglect (older child) was affirmed.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and How They Shaped the Holding

• Matter of Kaleb LL. [Bradley MM.], 218 AD3d 846 (3d Dept 2023): The court used this case for the core Article 10 proposition that sexual abuse is established by proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that respondent committed (or allowed) acts constituting Penal Law article 130 crimes. It anchored the appellate panel’s framing of the required proof and its comfort with circumstantial and expert medical evidence.
• Matter of Kaydence O. [Destene P.], 162 AD3d 1131 (3d Dept 2018): Cited alongside Matter of Kaleb LL. [Bradley MM.] to reinforce that Penal Law article 130 offenses can be established in Article 10 by a preponderance, and later for the proposition that the record here supported the Penal Law § 130.65 finding.
• Matter of Allylynn YY. [Dorian A.], 184 AD3d 972 (3d Dept 2020): The decision invoked the burden-shifting principle: injuries not ordinarily occurring absent abuse/neglect plus caretaker status constitutes prima facie proof, shifting to respondent to offer a reasonable explanation. This provided the doctrinal pathway for DSS to rely on medical injury evidence and access/opportunity evidence rather than direct eyewitness testimony.
• Matter of Brooke OO. [Lawrence OO.], 74 AD3d 1429 (3d Dept 2010), lv denied 15 NY3d 706 (2010): Cited for the same prima facie/burden-shifting framework, underscoring that the approach is longstanding and accepted in the Third Department.
• Matter of Sariyah T. [Deidre R.], 238 AD3d 1253 (3d Dept 2025): Used for the definition of derivative neglect: an impairment of parental judgment creating a substantial risk of harm to any child in the parent’s care. This authority supported extending the abuse finding as probative of risk to the sibling.
• Matter of Baylee F. [Jeanette E.], 231 AD3d 1318 (3d Dept 2024): Cited with Matter of Sariyah T. [Deidre R.] to reinforce the derivative neglect standard and its application where one child’s harm reveals broader parenting deficits.
• Matter of Joshua R. [Kimberly R.], 216 AD3d 1219 (3d Dept 2023), lv denied 40 NY3d 905 (2023) and Matter of Ja'Sire FF. [Jalyssa GG.], 206 AD3d 1076 (3d Dept 2022), lv denied 38 NY3d 912 (2022): These cases supplied the appellate standard of review: Family Court’s credibility and factual findings receive great weight and will not be disturbed absent lack of a sound and substantial basis. This was crucial because the father’s appellate argument attacked the sufficiency/weight of proof.
• Matter of Rosalynne AA. [Bridget AA.], 219 AD3d 1024 (3d Dept 2023) and Matter of Ashley RR., 30 AD3d 699 (3d Dept 2006): Cited as examples where similar evidentiary showings supported affirmance, bolstering the conclusion that the record here met the preponderance standard.
• Matter of Cailynn O. [Vincenzo Q.], 192 AD3d 1408 (3d Dept 2021) and Matter of Makayla I. [Caleb K.], 162 AD3d 1139 (3d Dept 2018): These decisions were used to justify drawing “the strongest possible inference” against a respondent who refuses to testify at an Article 10 fact-finding hearing based on the Fifth Amendment. The panel treated the negative inference as a meaningful evidentiary component that could reinforce an otherwise circumstantial case.
• Matter of Raelene B. [Alex D.], 179 AD3d 1315 (3d Dept 2020) and Matter of Sabrina M., 6 AD3d 759 (3d Dept 2004): These cases informed the derivative neglect analysis, particularly where abuse of a very young, defenseless child demonstrates a lack of capacity to protect other children and reflects impaired parental judgment.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Third Department’s reasoning proceeds in a structured Article 10 sequence:

1. Define the elements and burden. Sexual abuse in Article 10 requires proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, of acts that would constitute a Penal Law article 130 crime. The court placed the dispute in the evidentiary sufficiency lane rather than a novel statutory interpretation lane.
2. Use injury-plus-caretaker evidence to establish a prima facie case. The pediatric SANE identified a perihymenal healing injury indicative of acute penetrating trauma and inconsistent with a fall, with timing likely within 12–24 hours. Coupled with proof that the father was a caretaker with access (changing diapers, co-sleeping arrangement, occasional sole supervision), the record fit the paradigm described in Matter of Allylynn YY. [Dorian A.] and Matter of Brooke OO. [Lawrence OO.].
3. Credit behavioral corroboration from a neutral observer. The daycare teacher’s testimony—pain responses (“ow,” “stop”), genital guarding, and atypical distress—functioned as real-time corroboration of injury and trauma, strengthening the inference that the injury was not incidental.
4. Assess explanations and credibility. Family Court found the mother’s explanations unreasonable and credited DSS witnesses. On appeal, the Third Department deferred to those credibility findings under the “sound and substantial basis” standard.
5. Draw a negative inference from the father’s refusal to testify. The father invoked the Fifth Amendment when called. The appellate court endorsed Family Court’s ability to draw the strongest possible adverse inference, treating it as an additional evidentiary factor supporting the finding by a preponderance.
6. Extend risk to the sibling via derivative neglect. The sexual abuse of a very young child was deemed to demonstrate impaired parental judgment and an inability to protect other children in the parent’s care, supporting derivative neglect of the older child.

3.3 Impact

Although the decision is framed as a straightforward application of established standards, it has practical, precedent-reinforcing consequences:

• Strengthening Article 10 cases built on medical timing evidence. The court accepted the SANE’s timeline (12–24 hours) and “inconsistent with a fall” opinion as powerful circumstantial proof, especially when combined with caretaker access and behavioral changes noticed by daycare staff.
• Reaffirming the evidentiary force of a Fifth Amendment adverse inference in Family Court. The opinion underscores that, in a civil Article 10 proceeding, refusal to testify can permit Family Court to draw strong adverse inferences that materially affect the preponderance calculus.
• Lowering practical barriers where children are preverbal or very young. For toddlers not potty trained and unable to give detailed accounts, the decision highlights an evidentiary pathway: neutral caregiver observations + specialized pediatric forensic nursing testimony + access/opportunity evidence.
• Derivative neglect remains readily available in intra-family sexual abuse scenarios. The court’s sibling-risk analysis signals that sexual abuse of one very young child will frequently be sufficient to establish a substantial risk of harm to other children in the home absent countervailing proof.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• “Preponderance of the evidence”: The petitioner must show the claim is more likely true than not (often described as just over 50% likelihood), a lower standard than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
• “Prima facie” proof and burden shifting (injury + caretaker): If the evidence shows a child suffered an injury that ordinarily would not happen without abuse/neglect, and the respondent was a caretaker at the relevant time, the court may treat that as enough to establish the claim unless the respondent offers a reasonable alternative explanation.
• Negative (adverse) inference from invoking the Fifth Amendment: In civil proceedings like Article 10, a person may refuse to answer to avoid self-incrimination, but the judge may infer that truthful answers would have been unfavorable to that person.
• “Derivative neglect”: Even if only one child is proven harmed, the court may find another child neglected if the proven conduct shows impaired judgment creating a substantial risk to any child in the parent’s care.
• Pediatric SANE testimony: A Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner with pediatric certification can provide specialized observations about whether an injury pattern is consistent with sexual contact/penetrating trauma versus accidental causes, and may estimate timing based on healing features (e.g., granulation tissue).

5. Conclusion

Matter of Addilyn I. (Richard I.) affirms an Article 10 abuse finding grounded in circumstantial but clinically specific evidence: daycare observations of pain and guarding, a pediatric SANE’s conclusion of perihymenal injury consistent with acute penetrating trauma within a narrow window, caretaker access, and a strong adverse inference from the father’s refusal to testify. The decision also reiterates that sexual abuse of a very young child can, by itself, demonstrate impaired parental judgment sufficient to support derivative neglect of a sibling. In the broader child-protection landscape, the opinion reinforces how Family Court may synthesize medical expertise, caregiver testimony, and civil evidentiary inferences to meet the preponderance standard where direct child disclosure is limited or unavailable.