A Bronx Sex Crimes Lawyer said that, two petitions were filed by the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) in May 2010 on behalf of three-year-old child, and five-year-old, daughters of Respondent. The petition on behalf of the five-year-old child also named the child’s mother, as co-respondent, and the petition on behalf of the three-year-old child named her mother, as co-respondent.
A Bronx Sex Abuse Lawyer said that, the allegations in the petitions as to both children are identical. The petitions allege that both children are less than eighteen years of age and, their father, Respondent, has sexually abused them, as defined in Family Court Act § 1012(e)(iii), and has impaired their physical, mental or emotional conditions, or placed them in imminent danger of such impairment, as a result of his failure to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing each of them with proper supervision or guardianship, or by any other acts of a similarly serious nature requiring the aid of the court within the purview of the Family Court Act § 1012(f)(i)(B).
The fact finding hearing was commenced January 24, 2011 and was completed on March 23, 2012. ACS called two witnesses. A non-subject child, testified via two way circuit video from a residential treatment center in Syracuse, New York. The ACS Caseworker also testified. Respondent testified on his own behalf. Respondent testified and admitted that he was convicted of rape of two of his half-sisters, ages nine and fourteen. Respondent admitted that his 2001 rape conviction was the result of his having rubbed his then nine-year-old sister’s buttocks and vagina and his having sexual intercourse with his then 14 year old sister on approximately five occasions. He said that at the time he believed his younger sisters were consenting to the sexual contact but he now realized they were not consenting.
A Bronx Criminal Sex Crime Lawyer said that, respondent said he was 22 years old at the time of his arrest. He pled guilty to rape in the second degree and was incarcerated for about six years. Respondent stated that while incarcerated he completed a six month sex crime offender program at Gowanda Correctional Facility and that the sex offender program taught him to cope with his fears and anger and understand his triggers and stressors. Respondent said he learned to seek help and remove himself from situations in which he felt any inclination to deviant behavior. Respondent stated he completed parole on January 6, 2007 and complied with all parole requirements as well as the requirements of the sex offender registry. He said he saw a therapist four times while on parole. He testified he had not attended a sex crime offender program since his release and was not required to do so. Respondent testified that he was not prohibited from living with children.
Respondent testified he was the father of two of siblings. He said he was released from prison in 2005 and lived with the mother and her children for about two years commencing in 2006. The victim was about eight years old at the time. Respondent denied that he was ever alone with her and that he ever touched her inappropriately.
A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, petitioner ACS asks that the court, pursuant to Family Court Act § 1012(e)(iii) and § 1012(f)(i)(B), find that the subject children are derivatively neglected or abused children based on Respondent’s 2001 conviction of rape in the second degree of his two half-sisters, then ages fourteen and seven years,2 his registration as a level three sex offender, and the testimony of non-subject child D.T. who alleged that Respondent committed sex offenses against her around 2006–2008.
Respondent argues that the court must dismiss the instant petitions based on ACS’s failure to establish derivative abuse or neglect of the two subject children or to present evidence to show that Respondent has harmed the children or placed them in substantial risk of harm. Further, Respondent asserts that the testimony of the thirteen-year-old child as to his alleged sexual touching of her was not credible and could not be used as a predicate offense for a finding of derivative child pornography abuse or neglect.
The issue in this case is whether petitioner’s petition to ACS asks that the court, pursuant to Family Court Act § 1012(e)(iii) and § 1012(f)(i)(B), find that the subject children are derivatively neglected or abused children should be granted.
To Be cont….
If your child has been subjected to child abuse, seek the assistance of a Bronx Sex Crime Attorney and Bronx Criminal Attorney at Stephen Bilkis and Associates. Call us for free legal advice.