On January 25, 2005 the Administration for Children's Services (hereinafter, "ACS") filed child abuse and neglect petitions on behalf of the children Ingrid R., born October 11, 1994, Zaida C., born September 27, 1992, and Carla C., born October 28, 1993, against the respondent, Maurice L., who is not the father of any of the subject children but is alleged to be a person legally responsible for the children pursuant to Family Court Act §1012(g). The petitions allege, in pertinent part, the following:

1. According to the subject child Carla, the respondent Maurice L., a person legally responsible, forcibly touched the subject child Carla C., 11 years of age, repeatedly over the last three years. On these occasions, the respondent would enter the child's bedroom, try to climb into her bed, and touch her breasts and vagina over her clothes. Carla further reported that the respondent would watch her when she gets dressed approximately five days a week. The respondent also asked both Carla and the subject child, Ingrid, while they were taking a bath if he could join them. Said conduct is in violation of, including but not limited to New York Penal Law Sections 130.52 and 130.55, 130.60.

2. According to the subject children Carla and Ingrid, the respondent Maurice L., a person legally responsible, forcibly touched the child, Zaida C., 12 years of age, repeatedly over the last 3 years. On these occasions the respondent would enter the child's bedroom, try to climb into her bed, and touch her breasts over her clothes. According to the subject child Ingrid, on another occasion, [*2]she saw the respondent touch the subject child, Zaida's breasts over her clothes in the living room of their apartment. Further, according to the subject child Ingrid, on one occasion, the respondent pulled back the shower curtain and looked at them while they were showering. According to the subject child Carla, the respondent also watches Zaida, when she gets dressed. Said conduct is in violation of, including but not limited to New York Penal Law sections 130.52, 130.55 and 130.60.

3. The respondent mother knew or should have known of the above alleged abuse but failed to take steps to adequately protect the subject children.

4. The respondent is a person legally responsible for the care and custody of the subject children in that: a.[t]he respondent has been residing in the home with the respondent mother and subject children for over a year; b. the respondent baby-sits for the subject children when the respondent mother is out of the home; and c.[t]he respondent purchases food for the home.

The case was initially filed against the children's mother as well as Mr. L. However, at the initial appearance before another judge of this Court, ACS withdrew the petition as to the children's mother, indicating to the court that the mother was unaware of the sexual abuse allegedly perpetrated against her children. At that appearance, the Court released the children to their mother with strict ACS supervision and the children remain in her care to date. The Court also issued a temporary order of protection which excluded the respondent from the home of the children and required that he have no contact with them and that he stay at least five hundred feet away from them. This order also remains in effect to date.

Summary of the Proceedings

Issue was joined on February 8, 2005. Before trial, the respondent moved to dismiss arguing that he is not a person legally responsible for the children. That motion was denied on April 19, 2005, the Court finding that the issue of whether the respondent is a person legally responsible for the care of the subject children is a triable issue of fact. The fact-finding proceedings commenced on July 25, 2005. On August 8, 2005, based upon the evidence adduced at the trial up to that date, including evidence that the respondent shares a bedroom with the mother one or two days a week and that he has a key to the home, this Court ordered ACS to investigate whether the mother should be added as a respondent. ACS conducted an investigation but declined to name the mother as a respondent. On September 21, 2005, the trial concluded and the case was adjourned to November 1, 2005 for summations.

On November 1, 2005, the law guardian reported that the children had recanted their allegations of abuse. The law guardian moved for an order requiring that the children be evaluated by a mental health professional. That motion was granted on the consent of all parties and the trial was re-opened. ACS contracted with Dr. Don Lewittes to conduct videotaped child sexual abuse validation interviews of the children. Copies of the videotapes were entered into evidence on October 6, 2006 when Dr. Lewittes testified. Dr. Lewittes's report was admitted into evidence and his testimony continued over a number of court appearance dates concluding on October 19, 2007. On that date, the respondent was permitted to provide additional testimony [*3]and then all sides rested. The case was adjourned for submission of written summations.

Summary of the Court's Findings

After carefully reviewing the documentary evidence submitted, considering the testimony presented by all the witnesses in this matter, making the necessary credibility determinations, and considering the relevant law, this Court finds that the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the credible evidence that two of the subject children, Carla and Zaida, were indeed sexually abused as defined in Family Court Act §1012(e)(iii) by the respondent who engaged in acts against these children in violation of Penal Law §§130.52 (forcible touching), 130.55 (sexual abuse in the third degree), and 130.60 (sexual abuse in the second degree). The Court makes a finding of derivative abuse with respect to Ingrid.

Summary of the Evidence Presented at the Fact-Finding Hearing

ACS presented the testimony of case worker Venita Sharper and psychologist Don Lewittes, Ph.D. ACS also presented the following documentary evidence: child protective investigation intake reports initiated by Carla's school guidance counselor and the EMS technician who transported Carla from school to Peninsula Hospital, medical records of the children from Peninsula Hospital, Dr. Lewittes's curriculum vitae, his written evaluation, and the video tapes of his sessions with the subject children. The respondent testified at trial. The law guardian presented no independent evidence.

The Petitioner's Case

ACS case worker Venita Sharper testified that she was assigned to conduct a child welfare investigation of the sexual abuse allegations in this case. She interviewed Carla, Zaida and Ingrid on January 5, 2005 and again on June 15, 2005. According to Ms. Sharper, the children's statements to her on both dates were essentially consistent. Pursuant to Family Court Act §1046(a)(vi), the Court may admit into evidence out-of-court statements of a child relating to any allegation of abuse or neglect. In accordance with Family Court Act §1046(a)(vi), the out-of-court statements of the subject children to Ms. Sharper were admitted into evidence.

Ms. Sharper testified that on January 5, 2005, she first interviewed Carla at Peninsula Hospital where Carla was taken via ambulance after telling her school guidance counselor that her mother's paramour, respondent Maurice L., sexually abused her. Carla told Ms. Sharper that on numerous occasions the respondent entered her bedroom and touched her and Zaida on their private parts. Carla told Ms. Sharper that the respondent climbs into their bed and touches their breasts and vaginas. According to Carla, the respondent entered their bedroom unannounced and watched them as they dressed. Carla reported to Ms. Sharper that on the prior New Year's night he attempted to enter Zaida's bed, attempted to lift Zaida's shirt, and only stopped when Zaida yelled at him. Ms. Sharper further testified that Carla stated that the respondent entered the bathroom when she and Ingrid were bathing and tried to enter the bathtub with them. Carla told Ms. Sharper that the respondent lived with them and that she disclosed the abuse because she feared he would proceed further. When Ms. Sharper re-interviewed Carla at her school on June 15, 2005, Carla reported that the respondent was living in the home with them for a while, that he purchased food for the family, assisted the mother with payment of household bills, and [*4]babysat for them on numerous occasions.

Ms. Sharper testified that she interviewed Ingrid who told her during the first interview, held at Peninsula Hospital on January 5, 2005, that the respondent entered their bedroom unannounced and touched her sisters on their private parts. Ingrid told Ms. Sharper that she observed the respondent touch Carla and Zaida on their breasts on numerous occasions. Ingrid reported that on one occasion she and Zaida were showering and the respondent entered the bathroom, pulled the curtain and looked at them. Ingrid reported that she hid her nudity behind her sister, Zaida. Ingrid told Ms. Sharper that the respondent asked her if she told her mother what he does. Ingrid reported to Ms. Sharper that the respondent was living in the home with them. During her second interview with Ingrid, held at Ingrid's school on June 15, 2005, Ingrid told Ms. Sharper that the respondent lived in the home, bought them school supplies and articles of clothing, including the dress she was wearing at the time, and helped with the rent, cable and telephone bills. Ingrid told Ms. Sharper that she called the respondent"Daddy" and that he touched the children two to three times a week. Ingrid denied that the respondent touched her inappropriately, but reported that she witnessed him touch Carla and Zaida and that he attempted to enter the shower where Ingrid and Zaida bathed.

Ms. Sharper further testified that she made a home visit to the children's home. The respondent greeted her at the apartment, used his keys and allowed her entry. He showed Ms. Sharper the children's bedroom as well as the bedroom where he and the children's mother slept.

The petitioner also offered the testimony of Dr. Don Lewittes. Dr. Lewittes was deemed an expert in clinical and forensic psychology with specialization in child and adolescent sexual abuse. Dr. Lewittes interviewed the subject children individually on three separate occasions (December 12, 2005, December 28, 2005 and January 9, 2006), and also held a joint discussion session with the girls on the second interview date. The certified video-tapes of these sessions were admitted into evidence as well as Dr. Lewittes's written report in this matter. In addition to his evaluation sessions with the children, Dr. Lewittes reviewed relevant ACS progress notes, Peninsula Hospital Center medical records for the children, a behavior checklist completed by the children's mother, and a teacher's report form completed by Carla's teacher. Dr. Lewittes concluded, with a reasonable degree of psychological certainty, that Carla and Zaida's cases demonstrate consistency with children found to be victims of sexual abuse and that Ingrid's case demonstrates consistency with children found to be exposed to inappropriate sexual experiences within family settings.

During their interviews with Dr. Lewittes, all the children denied that they had been sexually abused by the respondent. Ingrid and Zaida blamed Carla for fabricating the stories about the respondent's behavior and Carla, herself, reported to Dr. Lewittes that she had lied. Carla told Dr. Lewittes that she fabricated the allegations because she did not receive the Christmas present she wanted. Dr. Lewittes also spoke briefly to the children's mother, who appeared to him to be "indignant" and "angry" about having to bring the girls for the evaluation. (Lewittes Report, p.33) The mother also blamed Carla for the family disturbances that resulted from her disclosure of the sexual abuse.

Dr. Lewittes found that Carla's and Ingrid's recantation of their initial sexual abuse disclosures "did not alter the highly concrete, idiosyncratic, sexually explicit disclosures reliably made to different sources by both Carla and Ingrid. The massive denials of all prior statements [*5]by these girls comes in the wake of strong known family pressures following authority intervention solely due to these original allegations." (Lewittes Report, p. 34)

The petitioner also offered documentary evidence. The records of Peninsula Hospital that were admitted into evidence reflect that Carla and Ingrid were taken to the hospital from their respective schools on January 5, 2005 after Carla made disclosures to school personnel that she was being inappropriately touched by the respondent. Carla reported to staff at Peninsula Hospital that the respondent touched her inappropriately on her breasts under her clothes. She stated that he got into her bed at night on several occasions and also touched her sisters.

Ingrid told hospital staff that she heard her sisters telling the respondent to get out of their bed. Ingrid denied being touched herself, but reported that she saw her sisters being touched. The Peninsula Hospital records submitted regarding Zaida do not reflect that she was interviewed on January 5, 2005.

Two child protective investigation intake reports were submitted into evidence. The first was a report called-in to the child abuse hotline on January 5, 2005 by Carla's school, after Carla made allegations to her school counselor that the respondent touched her breasts and private areas and that he looks at the girls when they dress. The report indicates that all the children were touched inappropriately and that Carla told her mother who talked to the respondent about the situation. The report indicates that Carla disclosed the abuse because she feared something worse would happen. The second report was called in by EMT worker Ferrucci, who transported Carla to the hospital. EMT Ferrucci reported that Carla told him that her mother's boyfriend fondled her breasts and vaginal area the night before and numerous times in the past.

The Respondent's Case

The respondent testified initially on August 8, 2005, and then again after Dr. Lewittes concluded his testimony on October 19, 2007. The respondent testified that he was involved in a romantic relationship with the children's mother for five years. He denied living with the family on a full-time basis but said that he slept at the home one or two nights weekly. He spent some Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays with the girls and their mother. He testified that he lived with his brother in Inwood, New York. He testified that he helped the family with expenses, purchased gifts for the girls, and had dinner with the girls. He testified that he did not babysit for the children and that the children had a babysitter named Becky. He denied being in the home with children in the absence of their mother and denied touching the girls inappropriately. He also denied the allegations that he watched the girls in the nude as they bathed. He admitted that he used his keys to the home to allow caseworker Sharper into the home, because he was the only one who could be at the home at the time to meet the caseworker. He admitted that the girls called him"Papi" which could be interpreted to mean "Daddy," but he said he considered it to be a term of endearment only.

The Respondent is a Person Legally Responsible for the Care of the Subject Children

Family Court Act §§1012(e) and 1012(f) permit the Court to exercise jurisdiction over not only parents but also over "persons legally responsible for the child's care." Although the respondent is not the parent of the children, the credible evidence presented in this matter, including his own testimony, provided the Court with a more than sufficient basis for finding that [*6]he is a person legally responsible for all three children. Pursuant to Family Court Act §1012(g) the definition of a "Person Legally Responsible" includes a "child's custodian, guardian, or any other person responsible for the child's care at the relevant time." The statute also states, "[c]ustodian may include any person continually or at regular intervals found in the same household as the child when the conduct of such person causes or contributes to the abuse or neglect of the child." When case worker Sharper appeared at the children's home during her investigation, the respondent met her at the home and opened the door with keys in his possession. He allowed Ms. Sharper to enter into the home and he showed her the apartment. The respondent showed Ms. Sharper the children's bedroom as well as the bedroom he represented as one he shared with the children's mother. The children reported to Ms. Sharper that the respondent stayed over in their home three to four nights a week and paid bills for the household. According to the children, who called him "Daddy," the respondent purchased school items, clothing, and food and helped with the rent for the household. In his testimony, the respondent reported staying over one to two nights weekly while also maintaining a separate residence.

The respondent is clearly the functional equivalent of a parent of the subject children in this matter. He was the mother's long-term romantic partner, had keys to the home, and with no hesitation whatsoever, provided the ACS case worker access to the entire home including the bedroom he shared with the children's mother. He paid household bills and provided things for the children. He spent a considerable amount of time in the home and regularly stayed overnight. It is also compelling that the children themselves considered him to be their father figure. Therefore, the Court finds that he is clearly a person legally responsible for the care of all of the subject children.

Abuse Findings as to Carla and Zaida

Pursuant to Family Court Act §1046(b)(1), the petitioner had the burden of establishing abuse or neglect by a preponderance of the credible evidence. This Court finds that the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the credible evidence that Carla and Zaida were indeed sexually abused pursuant to Family Court Act §1012(e)(iii) by the respondent who engaged in acts against these children in violation of Penal Law §§130.52 (forcible touching), 130.55 (Sexual Abuse in the Third Degree), and 130.60 (Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree). The record as a whole fully supports these findings.

Carla made compelling, detailed statements to her school guidance counselor, the police, Peninsula Hospital Staff, and the ACS caseworker that the respondent inappropriately touched her breasts and her vagina for a number of years. He would climb into her bed and sexually abuse her and he also entered the bathroom to watch her and her sisters while they bathed. Ingrid also made her own separate, compelling, detailed accusations to Ms. Sharper that the respondent touched Carla and Zaida on their breasts and entered the bathroom while she and Zaida were bathing and viewed them nude.

As noted earlier, the out-of-court statements of a child are admissible in child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act §1046(a)(vi). The law permits the admission of out-of-court statements in these limited circumstances because, without such evidence, it is often difficult to prosecute child abuse without exacerbating the child's traumatic experience by [*7]requiring the child to testify and because the typical secrecy involved with intra-familial dysfunction of this type (see Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112 [1997]) often dissuades the child from testifying truthfully. By allowing hearsay in this type of case, the law attempts to avoid the potentially disastrous consequences to a child that can result from an erroneous dismissal of a child abuse case. Matter of Christina F., 74 NY2d 532 (1989).

Family Court Act §1046(a)(vi) also provides, however, that if the child's out-of-court statements are not corroborated, they do not constitute a sufficient basis for a finding of abuse or neglect. Corroboration is defined as "any other evidence tending to support the reliability of the previous statements." Family Court Act §1046(a)(vi). While mere repetition by a child of sexual abuse allegations does not constitute sufficient corroboration of the allegations (see Nicole V., at 123), in cases involving more than one victim, each separate victim's hearsay statements describing sexual abuse may be sufficiently corroborative of the statements of the other. Nicole V., at 124. Here, Carla's and Zaida's statements were similar and were, therefore, cross-corroborative.

Carla's and Zaida's out-of-court statements were also corroborated by the expert validation testimony of Dr. Lewittes. "Validation" is a process utilized by mental health experts to determine whether a child exhibits behaviors consistent or inconsistent with children victimized by intra-familial sexual abuse. It is well established that expert validation testimony about the sexually abused child syndrome has been long accepted by our courts and may appropriately supply the corroboration of the child victim's out-of-court statement necessary to establish child sexual abuse in a case where the child victim does not testify. Nicole V., supra . This is particularly true when the expert retained for the purpose of conducting the evaluation is, as Dr. Lewittes is here, an independent one. Nicole V., at 121. This is so even in cases where there are no physical medical findings to support the allegations of child sexual abuse. Matter of Jaclyn P., 86 NY2d 875 (1995), Matter of Vincent I., 205 AD2d 878 (3rd Dept., 1994).

The children's cross-corroboration of each other's statements, viewed together with Dr. Lewittes's validation evaluation, provides more than sufficient corroboration of the children's statements. Therefore, pursuant to Family Court Act §1046(a)(vi), this Court may properly make a finding of abuse.

The fact that Carla and Ingrid recanted their allegations does not render their independent detailed accusations against the respondent incredible. Indeed, it is well recognized that sexually abused children often recant their allegations for a variety of reasons including family pressure. Matter of Richard SS., 29 AD3d 1118 (3rd Dept., 2006), Matter of Martha Z., 288 AD2d 706 (3rd Dept., 2001), Matter of Karen BB., 216 AD2d 754 (3rd Dept., 1995). Sufficient corroborative evidence to sustain a finding of abuse can be found for a child's out-of-court statements through expert validation evidence even when there is a recantation due to pressure. Matter of Beverly W., 159 AD2d 802 (3rd Dept 1990).

It is crystal clear to this Court that the children's initial disclosures of the sexual abuse were true and that their much-later recantation of these allegations was false. The respondent indeed sexually abused these girls who later denied the allegations in a failed attempt to stop the investigation and end the serious disruption in their lives. Carla and Ingrid suffered extreme family pressure to recant their disclosures. Their mother, who was well aware of the abuse inflicted upon her daughters, was never charged with such and was clearly angry that her [*8]paramour was arrested and subsequently excluded from the home. She was also disturbed by ACS's presence in her life and by the resulting limitations placed upon her ability to travel to her home country. The mother's feelings about her life situation and the loss of her paramour were clearly communicated to the children. Even if the mother did not directly tell the children to recant, her reaction to the developments following the disclosures likely encouraged them to recant. The children all stated to Dr. Lewittes that they wanted"this all to end." They were also consistent in telling him of their desire to make their mother happy. They mistakenly believed that the means to end this case would be to blame the "liar" - Carla - and deny the reality that they were all victims of horrific sexual abuse perpetrated by their father figure with the full knowledge and apparent consent of their mother.

The adults and children in this family engaged in a failed campaign to end the outside intervention into their exposed familial dysfunction by blaming poor Carla. Carla suffered severe family retribution for daring to disclose the sexual abuse to outsiders. The mother called Carla a "liar." Carla called herself "crazy" and to support that conclusion, told Dr. Lewittes that she breaks things and blames others. Ingrid called Carla "crazy" and tried to prove it by telling Dr. Lewittes that Carla signed her mother's name on test papers and lied about going to the library. Zaida joined in by reporting that "Carla lies a lot." Her example was that Carla stole a book when she was in second grade.

The mother knew full well that her children were being sexually abused by the respondent. Carla and Ingrid reported that they told their mother about the respondent's actions and their mother told the respondent to "stop bothering them." It is an utter disgrace that ACS, for a reason that they refuse to disclose, chose to absolve the mother of responsibility in this case after initially filing against her as a respondent. The mother's omissions and overt harmful actions toward her daughters have perpetuated the abuse the children suffered. The fact that she engaged in blaming Carla for this situation is indefensible.

Carla's and Ingrid's belated denial of the sexual abuse is not credible. Although Carla told Dr. Lewittes that she fabricated the allegations of abuse because she did not receive the Christmas present she wanted, Dr. Lewittes noted that non-psychopathic twelve-year-olds such as Carla simply do not make up childhood sexual abuse allegations when they do not get a desired Christmas present. The Christmas present revenge story was a weak attempt to justify the recantation. Another reason to believe Carla's initial allegation is that if Carla had intended to lie, she would have limited her accusations of sexual abuse to herself and would not have made allegations involving her sisters which her sisters could readily deny. In fact, Ingrid independently made the same accusation in January, 2005 and again in June, 2005. No rationale was offered as to why Ingrid might do so falsely.

Additionally, Zaida suspiciously behaved in the same manner as Carla and Ingrid, first reporting to Ms. Sharper that Carla told her of being sexually abused by the respondent, then denying her earlier statement.

The Court finds that the initial, highly detailed disclosures made by Carla and Ingrid of the abuse were credible and that Dr. Lewittes's testimony and conclusions were also fully credible. The respondent's self-serving denials were unpersuasive and incredible.

Penal Law §§130.52 prohibits forcible touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of another person for the purpose of degrading or abusing such person or for the purpose of [*9]gratifying the actor's sexual desire. Penal Law §§130.55 prohibits subjection of another person to sexual contact without the person's consent. Penal Law §§130.60 prohibits subjection of another person to sexual contact when the other person is less than fourteen years old.

The Court finds that the respondent engaged in the acts described by Carla and Ingrid and, even if the children's age permitted them to legally consent to such acts, the respondent engaged in these acts without their consent and for the purpose of gratifying his sexual desire. Carla and Zaida were age 11 and 12, respectively, at the time these abuse petitions were filed. Therefore, the respondent's acts toward Carla and Zaida violated all three Penal Law provisions cited.

Family Court Act §1012(e) states, " [a]bused child means a child less than eighteen years of age whose parent or other person legally responsible for his care...(iii) commits, or allows to be committed an offense against such child defined in article one hundred thirty of the penal law...."

Pursuant to the definition of "abused child" in Family Court Act §1012(e)(iii), Carla and Zaida are abused children as a result of the respondent's behavior.

Derivative Abuse of Ingrid

While it can fairly be implied that Ingrid was also likely to have been forcibly touched and sexually abused by the respondent, the evidence is not sufficient for a finding by a preponderance that Ingrid was forcibly touched or sexually abused. However, proof of the abuse or neglect of one child is admissible evidence on the issue of the abuse or neglect of any other child of, or the legal responsibility of, the respondent. Family Court Act §1046(a)(i). And it is well-established that sexual abuse of a child in the home can be the basis for a finding of derivative neglect as to other children in the home who are not the direct target of the sexual abuse where the abuse evinces a flawed understanding of parental duties and judgment. See Matter of Abigail S., 21 AD2d 380 (2nd Dept., 2005). Our appellate courts have also permitted derivative findings of child abuse in appropriate cases. See Matter of Daniel W., 37 AD3d 842 (2nd Dept., 2007) and Matter of Priscilla Cruz, 121 AD2d 901, 503 NYS2d 798 (1st Dept., 1986) "Derivative findings in Article 10 proceedings are predicated upon the common understanding that a parent whose judgment and impulse control are so defective as to harm one child in his or her care is likely to harm others as well." In re Custody and Guardianship of Marino S., Jr., 181 Misc 2d 264, 693 NYS2d 822 (Family Court, New York County, 1999), Affirmed 293 AD2d 223, 741 NYS2d 207 (1st Dept., 2002), affirmed 100 NY2d 361 (1999). The respondent's forcible touching and sexual abuse of then 11-year-old Carla and 12-year-old Zaida, of which then 10-year-old Ingrid was well aware, shows such poor judgment and flawed understanding of his role as an adult caretaker of the subject children that any child in his care would be at serious risk of harm. More than just poor judgment and flawed understanding of the role of a parent in this home, the evidence clearly establishes that, at a minimum, Ingrid was exposed to the respondent's sexual abuse of her sisters, was placed in the immediate zone of danger, and was at imminent risk of physical and emotional harm herself. Therefore, this Court finds that Ingrid has been derivatively abused by the respondent.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ADJUDGED, that findings of child abuse, pursuant to Family Court Act §1012(e)(iii), are entered against the respondent as to all three subject children. [*10]

This matter will proceed to a dispositional hearing pursuant to Family Court Act

§§1045 and 1052 on a date convenient to the Court and all parties. The Court orders that an investigation and report be conducted by ACS. The Court further orders that a comprehensive mental health evaluation be conducted upon the children and their mother by the Court's Mental Health Services office to assist the court in issuing dispositional orders in this matter. If the respondent wishes to maintain a relationship with the children's mother and the children, he is ordered to also participate in the mental health evaluation. If the respondent no longer wishes to maintain a relationship with the mother and/or the children, the Court will issue a full stay-away order of protection on behalf of the children that will last until each child reaches eighteen years of age. The reports prepared in this matter shall address diagnosis and treatment recommendations, if any, regarding the mother and the children.

This constitutes the decision and Order of this Court.

ENTER:

_____________________________________

EDWINA G. RICHARDSON-MENDELSON

Judge of the Family Court

Dated:Jamaica, New York

February 8, 2008