The court's finding that respondent had neglected her son by subjecting him to excessive corporal punishment was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, including the credible testimony of the subject child during direct examination. The child's cross-examination testimony, given one month subsequent to his direct testimony, was properly discounted by Family Court based upon its observation of the child's erratic demeanor during cross-examination (see, Matter of Starchana B., 246 A.D.2d 595).
Respondent's application to have her son subjected to psychological evaluation was, on balance, properly denied since petitioner's case did not rely on expert testimony and respondent had a full and fair opportunity to test the child's credibility by means of cross-examination (see, Matter of Jessica R., 78 N.Y.2d 1031). Also proper under all the circumstances was Family Court's exclusion of respondent from the courtroom during the testimony of her child, and since her attorney was allowed to remain, respondent was not deprived of due process (Matter of Falon P., 250 A.D.2d 497). Finally, Family Court did not err when it denied respondent's request to call character witnesses, since the testimony of those witnesses would not have been admissible to establish that respondent had not subjected her son to excessive corporal punishment (see, Fanelli v. diLorenzo, 187 A.D.2d 1004) and respondent's professional reputation had, in any case, already been established.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.