Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the father's contention, the petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that he sexually abused his daughter ( see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Liza O., 47 AD3d 632). The daughter's out-of-court account of the abuse was corroborated both by her brother's out-of-court account as a witness to the abuse, and by the testimony of an expert in clinical and forensic psychology, with a specialization in child abuse, who evaluated the children ( see Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 120-121; Matter of Tristan R., 63 AD3d 1075, 1076-1077). Moreover, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion, in drawing a negative inference against the father for his failure to testify on his own behalf ( see Matter of Tajani B., 49 AD3d 876, 877).
The evidence that the father sexually abused his daughter evinced his flawed understanding of the duties of a parent and impaired parental judgment sufficiently to support the Family Court's finding that her two brothers were derivatively neglected ( see Matter of Grant W. [Raphael A.], 67 AD3d 922).