In re Breanna R.
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Of Doe 44 v. Erik P.R. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- B., JANIECE, MTR. OF (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re Janiece B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- B., CHELSEY, MTR. OF (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- In re Chelsey B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Matter of Cynthia M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Matter of Bryleigh E.N. (Derek G.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Matter of William J.B. v. Dayna L.S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Matter of Brooke T. (Justin T.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- C., LYDIA, MTR. OF (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- In re Lydia C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- In re Dustin B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- In re Justyce M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Patricia A. Maxwell, J.), entered July 30, 2008 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order dismissed the petition.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law and facts without costs, the petition is granted, Breanna R. and Giovanna R. are found to be abused children as defined in Family Court Act § 1012 (e) (iii) and Giulianna R. is found to be a neglected child as defined in Family Court Act § 1012 (f) (i) (B), and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Erie County, for a dispositional hearing in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding alleging, inter alia, that respondent father sexually abused his three children. At the fact-finding hearing, petitioner presented evidence that the two oldest children made out-of-court statements to a child protective services (CPS) caseworker employed by petitioner and that one of those children also made similar statements to a clinical social worker who counseled those children. In addition, petitioner presented validation testimony from a licensed psychologist who investigated the allegations of sexual abuse, interviewed the two oldest children and the parents, consulted petitioner’s records and conducted psychological testing of the parents. The psychologist testified that, based on his experience, the protocol for assessment of child sexual abuse and the results of the psychological testing, the two oldest children had been sexually abused by the father.
Family Court dismissed the petition. The court concluded that the validation testimony was not convincing, that the accounts of sexual abuse by the two oldest children were inconsistent, and that their knowledge of sexual matters could be attributed to factors other than sexual abuse by the father.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.