The record supports the finding that respondent was a "person legally responsible" for the child whose abuse is the basis for the instant derivative child protective proceeding (Family Ct Act § 1012[a],[g]; see Matter of Yolanda D., 88 N.Y.2d 790, 796). While the record is silent as to how often the child visited respondent's home, it does show that respondent was related to the child, who, at the time of the abuse, was staying with respondent overnight so that respondent could braid her hair, and otherwise permits an inference of substantial familiarity between the child and respondent and respondent's own children (see Matter of Nathaniel "TT", 265 A.D.2d 611, 613, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 757; Matter of Marta B., 233 A.D.2d 667, 668). The nature and severity of the direct abuse — a bathtub scalding resulting in death — clearly warrant a finding of derivative abuse of respondent's own children, even absent evidence of direct abuse of the latter (Family Ct Act § 1046[a][I]; Matter of Anthony S., 280 A.D.2d 302, 303).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.