Matter of RD (Gregory D.)

[*1] Matter of RD (Gregory D.) 2017 NY Slip Op 50988(U) Decided on August 2, 2017 Family Court, Bronx County Cooper, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on August 2, 2017
Family Court, Bronx County

In the Matter of RD, GRD, AND, GAD, ARD and ND, Children Under Eighteen Years of Age Alleged to be Neglected and Abused by Gregory D., Respondent.



NA29876-81/16



New York City Administration for Children's Services

900 Sheridan Avenue

Bronx, New York 10451

By: Special Assistant Corporation Counsel Elizabeth DeSantis Esq.

Bronx Defenders

Attorney for Respondent

360 East 161st Street

Bronx, New York 10451

By: Nicole Velasquez Esq.

Lawyers For Children

Attorney for the Children RD, GRD & AND

110 Lafayette Street, New York, NY 10013

By: Doneth Gayle Esq.

Legal Aid Society- Juvenile Rights Division

Attorney for the Children GAD, ARD & ND

900 Sheridan Avenue

Bronx, New York 10451

By: Cesar Molina Esq.
Sarah P. Cooper, J.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 22, 2016, the Commissioner of Administration for Children's Services [hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioner" or "ACS"] filed petitions against Gregory D. [hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent"] alleging that the Respondent sexually abused and [*2]neglected his daughter RD (DOB: xx-xx-xx) within the meaning of Family Court Act Section 1012 in that he committed sex offenses against her as defined in section 130 of New York Penal Law. The petitions further allege that, based on the Respondent's sexual abuse of RD, the Respondent's other children (AND, DOB xx-xx-xxxx; GRD, DOB: xx-xx-xxxx; GAD, DOB xx-xx-xxxx; AND, DOB xx-xx-xxxx; ND, DOB xx-xx-xxxx) were derivatively abused and neglected.

On November 22, 2016, the Respondent appeared in Court and was assigned an attorney from The Bronx Defenders (Nicole Velasquez, Esq.). The Respondent's three older children (AND, RD and GRD) were assigned an attorney from Lawyers for Children (Doneth Gayle, Esq.) who had represented those children in custody and visitation proceedings in New York County. The three older children were released to their non-respondent mother, Ms. Q. The Respondent's three younger children (GAD, ARD and ND) were assigned an attorney from The Legal Aid Society (Cesar Molina, Esq.) and released to the care of their non-respondent mother, Ms. D. The Respondent was permitted to continue to reside in the home with his three younger children and Ms. D provided he did not have any unsupervised time with the children.

A fact-finding commenced in this matter on March 15, 2017 and continued on March 24, 2017, April 5, 2017, May 9, 2017 and June 2, 2017. Child Protective Specialist Shanika Wheeler [hereinafter referred to as the "Ms. Wheeler"] and the child RD [FN1] testified on behalf of the Petitioner. The child RD's former school therapist, Dr. Laurie Nathan, testified on behalf of the Respondent. The Respondent testified on his behalf and submitted into evidence, as Respondent's A through D respectively, a photograph of the bathroom in the Respondent's basement, a photograph of the basement with the bed and bathroom visible, a photograph of the door to the basement bathroom and a photograph of the "prayer area" in the basement.

After the parties rested, the attorney for the children AND, RD and GRD, the attorney for the children GAD, ARD and ND, and the attorney for the Petitioner asked that the Court find that the Respondent had sexually abused and neglected the child RD and derivatively neglected the other children. The Respondent asked that the petitions be dismissed in their entirety.

SUMMARY OF THE RELEVANT TESTIMONY

For approximately three and a half years before the instant petitions were filed, the child RD lived in the Respondent's home with her older sister AND, her twin brother GRD, and her three younger half-siblings (GAD, ARD and ND). The Respondent's wife (Ms. D), Ms. D's sister and Ms. D's mother also lived in the home. The Respondent's home was three floors with two bathrooms. The child's room was on the top floor of the house and the Respondent's room, which he shared with his wife, was in the basement.

The five older children, including RD, showered in the basement bathroom. RD showered every night. The children's shower routine was described by the three older children as a set rotation such that if you went last the first night, you would go second the next day and then you would be first on the third day. RD would "set" the temperature in the shower for her younger sisters, GAD and ARD, and then stay downstairs while they showered until they were done. After GAD and ARD finished showering, they would go upstairs and then RD would shower.

RD testified that sometime in October of 2016, when RD was ten years-old, the Respondent began sexually abusing her. At the direction of the Respondent, the shower order [*3]rotation stopped and RD would always shower last. None of her siblings were in the basement when she showered. When RD was in the bathroom showering, the Respondent would come into the shower and wash her back and dry her back off. The Respondent would use his whole hand to dry her back off in the bathroom. The Respondent went into the bathroom while RD was in there between five and ten times. On one occasion, the Respondent applied lotion to her back. On at least one occasion, the Respondent applied lotion to her arm and her leg, from her upper thigh all the way down to her ankle. On one occasion, while she was naked in the bathroom, the Respondent touched the center, inner-portion and under-portion of her breast with his index finger, stating that she needed to buy better bras. The child felt upset and wanted to cry. On one occasion, while she was in front of the bed in the basement wearing only a shirt and a bra, the Respondent touched the side of her vagina with two fingers and then poked her vagina. The child's eyes were watering and she wanted to back away.

At the time of these incidents, the child was seeing a psychologist at school named Dr. Laurie Nathan. RD testified that she did not have a good relationship with Dr. Nathan and that she did not trust Dr. Nathan. RD felt that Dr. Nathan told the Respondent everything she said and felt that the Respondent was telling Dr. Nathan things to suggest that RD was not believable. Not surprisingly, RD did not disclose to Dr. Nathan what the Respondent had done to her and Dr. Nathan only found out about the allegations after ACS was already involved.

After the first time the Respondent abused her, RD disclosed the abuse to her sister AND and, on the same day, told her brother GRD. She disclosed to two reading teachers at school, and despite wanting them to do something about it, she asked her teachers not to tell anybody. She asked her teachers not to tell anyone because she didn't want people to think she was lying to either get attention or because she didn't want to live with her father. She initially had trusted her two reading teachers and hoped they would do something about it. Then she learned that her reading teachers had told another teacher what she had said and the other teacher told them it wasn't true so the reading teachers took no further action. She then felt that she could not trust her teachers, including the two teachers she told, and she felt that they did not trust her. She knew that her teachers talked to both the Respondent and Dr. Nathan and she felt that her teacher's were on her "dad's side" and that they would want to believe her dad.

Child Protective Specialist Shanika Wheeler testified that she observed RD's interview with Ms. Arthur at the Child Advocacy Clinic on November 17, 2016. In that interview, RD disclosed that, sometime prior to the school year starting, the Respondent came into the basement bathroom while she was showering, asked to wash her back, asked her to get out of the shower naked, stated he wanted to dry her back off and told her to get dressed in front of him. RD disclosed that there were four or five other times that the Respondent asked her to come out of the shower naked and get dressed in front of him. RD also disclosed that the Respondent had applied lotion to her back, upper thigh and arms, that he had asked her if she shaved her "vagina area", and that on at least one occasion he poked at her breast area while she cried and he explained that he was doing it to "protect" her. RD indicated that, after the first time it happened, she told her older sister AND, as well as her twin brother GRD, warning them to be careful.

GRD and AND both corroborated that RD had told them that the Respondent touched her. Gregory told Ms. Wheeler that one time when RD was showering, he was downstairs playing video games and the Respondent came downstairs and told him to go upstairs. He ignored him, so his father asked him again, and he ignored his father again, so his father told him a third time to stop playing and go upstairs. GRD explained that he eventually did leave the [*4]basement but that he did not want to leave and that he felt the Respondent was telling him to leave so that he would not see the Respondent enter the bathroom when RD was showering. Shortly thereafter, RD came upstairs and told GRD that the Respondent had went into the bathroom and made RD come out of the shower nude again. AND told Ms. Wheeler about the set shower rotation that RD had described. AND also stated that one time the Respondent came downstairs and asked who was showering next and AND said it was her turn. The Respondent told her to let RD shower so AND let her sister in the shower and AND went upstairs. When RD came upstairs she told AND that "it happened again". Ms. Wheeler further testified that ARD and GAD also corroborated that RD sets the temperature in the shower for them and then RD showers last.

RD also told her mother, with whom she had regular visitation at the time, about what the Respondent did, and she told her mother that she did not want to go back to the Respondent's house because of what he did. RD said that her mother made her go back to the Respondent's house because she had to. RD did not tell the Respondent's wife, indicating that she did not have a good relationship with her and that she felt the Respondent's wife favored her own children over RD, GRD and AND.

Prior to living with the Respondent, the child had lived with her mother, Ms. Q. After the child got in the middle of a fight between her mother and her mother's boyfriend, ACS became involved with the family. There was a neglect case filed in New York County Family Court against Ms. Q and in July of 2013, RD, GRD and AND were moved to the Respondent's home. For the next two and half years, ACS monitored the Respondent's home. RD's parents were also involved in a contested custody case in New York County during that time. In February of 2016, the referee in New York County ruled that the Respondent would have custody of the children. Ms. Q appealed the decision and during the pendency of the fact-finding in this matter (in the Spring of 2017), the Appellate Division overturned the New York County custody determination.

RD was candid about the fact that she never wanted to leave her mother's home and that even when she lived at the Respondent's home, she always wanted to live at her mother's home.

Dr. Nathan testified that she is a school psychologist at RD's school with whom the RD met with from 2013 to 2016. She admitted to challenging RD three times during their therapy sessions regarding RD's allegations of the Respondent's sex abuse by telling her that such allegations could result in her father being deported. Dr. Nathan explained her actions by stating "I thought she should see the big picture." In response to Dr. Nathan telling her this, RD looked upset and expressed concern over whether she hurt Dr. Nathan's feelings. Dr. Nathan admitted to acting on behalf of the father, at the request of his former attorney, on two separate occasions. Firstly, Dr. Nathan wrote a letter to INS regarding his role in the family to assist with an immigration issue. Secondly, Dr. Nathan testified on behalf of the father during his custody trial against RD's mother. Dr. Nathan explained that at one point during her session with RD, RD indicated to the therapist that she knew Dr. Nathan was testifying in the custody trial because her mother had told her. Dr. Nathan admitted that she had not disclosed to her client RD that she was testifying in a custody dispute between RD's parents involving who would have custody of RD.

LEGAL ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Burden of Proof

In a child protective proceeding commenced under Article Ten of the Family Court Act, the petitioner bears the burden of proving the allegations in the petition by a preponderance of [*5]the evidence. FAM. CT. ACT § 1046(b)(i); Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1 (1985). While the statute does not define the term "preponderance of the evidence," the court is required to determine whether the allegations in the petition are "more probably true than untrue." Matter of Jamie TT., 191 AD2d 132, 134 (3rd Dept 1993).

Credibility of the Witnesses

The trial court's determinations regarding a witness's credibility shall be afforded great weight and shall not be disturbed unless unsupported by the record. Matter of Elijah J. (Yvonda M.), 105 AD3d 449 (1st Dept 2013). The Court had ample opportunity to observe the demeanor and credibility of each witness. In this case, where only the Respondent and the child RD have personal knowledge to confirm or deny the allegations in the petitions, the Court's credibility assessments of the child RD and the Respondent are of particular importance.

The Court credits the testimony of the child RD who testified candidly, credibly and in detail about the Respondent's sexual abuse of her. The child's direct testimony was consistent with her testimony on cross-examination by the attorney for the Respondent, the attorney for her half-siblings and her own attorney which is particularly compelling given that each attorney would ask the same question in different ways [FN2] . The child RD's testimony regarding the Respondent's sexual abuse is corroborated by the testimony of Child Protective Specialist Shanika Wheeler. Ms. Wheeler was present at the Child Advocacy Clinic when the child was interviewed and Ms. Wheeler testified to the statements the child made in the interview. The child's testimony in court was consistent with the statements the child made during that interview. Any inconsistencies between the child's testimony and the caseworker's testimony (such as what, if anything, the Respondent said to her while he touched her vagina) were minor, peripheral to the dispositive issues and did not undermine the child's credibility (see Matter of Fendi B. [Jason B.], 142 AD3d 878 [1st Dept 2016].; Matter of Kylani R. [Kyreem B.], 93 AD3d 556 [1st Dept 2012]).

Conversely, the Court credits only portions of the Respondent's testimony. While the Court finds the Respondent's denial of his sexual abuse incredible, the Court notes that portions of the Respondent's testimony corroborated the testimony of the child RD. For example, the Respondent corroborated RD's testimony that his bedroom is in the basement, that the children shower in the basement, that they shower at night, that RD sets the temperature in the shower for GAD and ARD, and that RD showers separately from them. The Respondent, when asked to describe himself as a parent, stated that he was there to protect his children which was noteworthy since RD told the interviewer at the Children's Advocacy Clinic that the Respondent told her he was touching her body to protect her. The Court finds the Respondent's insistence that he never went to the basement between the hours of 6:30pm and 9:00pm (the time period [*6]each night that the five children would shower) incredible given that the Respondent's bedroom and prayer area were in the basement. It is simply incredible that he never had to go downstairs to grab something, like an article of clothing for example, from the bedroom, or that he wouldn't retreat to his bedroom for a few moments of privacy from the three other adults and six children in the home, or that he never needed to use the downstairs bathroom because the other bathroom was being used by any of the other 9 occupants of the home.

Lastly, Dr. Laurie Nathan was called by the Respondent in this case, presumably to discredit the child RD, but her testimony had the opposite effect and actually bolstered the Petitioner's case. The Court is deeply disturbed by the actions taken by Dr. Nathan. Dr. Nathan admitted to confronting RD on three separate occasions regarding RD's allegations of the Respondent's sex abuse by telling her that such allegations could result in her father being deported. Dr. Nathan's behavior in confronting the child this way was outrageous, most certainly harmful to the child, and indicative of her strong bias in favor of the Respondent. Indeed, Dr. Nathan admitted to acting on behalf of the father, at the request of his former attorney, on two separate occasions (by writing a letter to INS regarding his role in the family to assist with an immigration issue and by testifying on behalf of the father during his custody trial against RD's mother). Dr. Nathan "adopted" the Respondent's view that RD's mother was actively poisoning RD's view of her father. Dr. Nathan admitted that she had not disclosed to her client RD that she was testifying in a custody dispute between RD's parents involving who would have custody of RD. While this Court is cognizant that children enjoy only a limited confidentiality in their relationship with their therapist, it is nonetheless alarming to this Court that Dr. Nathan would not have consulted with her own client (RD) regarding whether she should testify in the custody proceeding between her parents, or, at the very least, that she did not inform her client that she was testifying in the custody proceeding.

RD testified that she did not trust Dr. Nathan and RD's testimony suggests that she did not disclose to Dr. Nathan because she did not think Dr. Nathan would believe her and that, given Dr. Nathan's relationship with the Respondent, Dr. Nathan would side with him. RD's distrust of Dr. Nathan was warranted. Indeed, Dr. Nathan did testify on behalf of the Respondent in this case and her testimony establishes that Dr. Nathan did not believe the child. There was nothing reasonable about this disbelief. Dr. Nathan exhibited bias in favor of the Respondent and given that bias, as well as what appears to be a complete abdication of her ethical responsibilities to her client, Dr. Nathan's creditability determination regarding the child is given no weight by this Court. However, her testimony does bolster the Petitioner's case. Despite being confronted on three separate occasions by Dr. Nathan with the possibility that her father could be deported based on the child's allegations, RD still did not recant her allegations.

Petitioner Established that the Respondent Sexually Abused the child RD

Family Court Act Section 1012(e) (iii) defines an "abused child" as one against whom a parent or personally legally responsible has committed an offense defined in Section 130 of the Penal Law. FAM. CT. ACT § 1012(e)(iii). In the instant case, the Petitioner alleges that the Respondent sexually abused the child RD pursuant to Family Court Section 1012(e) (iii), in that he committed sex offenses against her as defined in Section 130 of New York Penal Law.

In New York State, a person is guilty of forcible touching when such person intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose, forcibly touches the sexual or other intimate parts of another person for the purpose of degrading or abusing such person, or for the purpose of gratifying the actor's sexual desire. NY Penal Law § 130.52. Forcible touching includes [*7]squeezing, grabbing or pinching. Id. The Court finds that the Respondent committed the offense of forcible touching, as defined in Penal Law Section 130.52, by intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose, forcibly touching the child RD's vagina on one occasion, and breast on another occasion, for the purpose of gratifying his sexual desire. The Court finds that the child RD testified credibly regarding the Respondent touching her vagina and breast. The Respondent failed to provide any innocent reason or explanation for touching the child RD's sexual parts as he outright denied touching the child RD in those places. The Court finds the Respondent's outright denial of touching the child RD incredible. The testimony also established that the Respondent had access to the child while the child showered, and indeed, the child GRD's statements to Ms. Wheeler corroborate that. In the absence of any innocent reason or explanation for the Respondent to be touching the child's sexual parts, the Court is permitted to infer from the conduct itself that the Respondent acted with the purpose of gratifying his sexual desire. In re Keisha McL, 261 AD2d 341, 342 (1st Dept 1999). Gratification may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances. Matter of Daniela R. (Daniel R.), 118 AD3d 637 (1st Dept 2014).

In New York State, a person is guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree when he or she subjects another person to sexual contact and when such other person is less than eleven years-old. NY Penal Law § 130.65. Sexual contact is defined as any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party. NY Penal Law § 130.00. It includes the touching of the actor by the victim, as well as the touching of the victim by the actor, whether directly or through clothing, as well as the emission of ejaculate by the actor upon any part of the victim, clothed or unclothed. Id. RD was ten years-old at the time the Respondent touched her vagina on one occasion and touched her breast on another. Therefore, the Court finds that the Respondent committed the offense of sexual abuse in the first degree by subjecting the child RD to sexual contact on two occasions.

The child RD's sworn testimony is competent evidence that the Respondent sexually abused her and requires no further corroborating evidence (see Matter of Imani G. [Pedro G.], 130 AD3d 456 [1st Dept 2015]). Nonetheless, the child RD's testimony was corroborated by the caseworker's testimony (see Matter of Fendi B. [Jason B.], 142 AD3d 878 [1st Dept 2016]).

The Respondent cites to In re Smith, 128 AD2d 784 (2nd Dept 1987), a case in which allegations that a father sexually abused his four-old son were made during a "volatile" divorce proceeding. The facts in In re Smith differ from the present case in many significant ways including that the child in that case was just four years old and, as such, was at an age where he was arguably more susceptible to coaching, and definitely less swearable as a competent witness. Indeed, that proceeding included the testimony of a validator, as well as expert testimony disputing the sexual abuse. Despite these differences, the Respondent argues that the allegation of sexual abuse can not be separated from the custody dispute in this case. Firstly, the Respondent's sexual abuse of RD began years after RD began living with the Respondent, years after the parents first had a case in court, months after ACS stopped monitoring the house, and months after a final custody determination was rendered by the family court. There was no current custody proceeding in family court when RD made the allegations, although an appeal of the custody decision was pending. If RD was going to manipulate the custody process by making false allegations against the Respondent, it would be illogical for her to wait until a final custody determination was made. Further, while RD was candid about her desire to live with her mother, there is absolutely no evidence that RD made these allegations in order to effectuate that end. [*8]Her testimony was credible. The Respondent's denial of the sexual abuse was not credible. Lastly, even if RD had made these allegations during the pendency of the family court custody proceeding, an otherwise credible account of sexual abuse should not be discredited just because it happens during a contested custody dispute. Indeed, children are no less vulnerable to the abuse or neglect of their parent, and possibly more so, during contested custody proceedings.

The Court rejects the theory of the case presented by the Respondent. The Court finds that the Respondent, emboldened by a custody determination in his favor, and cognizant that his child was working with a therapist who had not once, but twice acted in the Respondent's agency, seized the opportunity presented when ACS stopped monitoring his home, to sexually abuse his daughter.

Petitioner Established the Derivative Neglect of the Other Children

Family Court Act Section 1046 (a)(i) states that evidence of the abuse or neglect of one child can be considered in determining whether other children in the household were abused or neglected. FAM. CT. ACT § 1046(a)(i). Even in the absence of direct evidence of actual abuse or neglect of a second child, a derivative finding may be made where the evidence as to the directly abused or neglected child demonstrates such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm for any child in their care. Matter of Vincent M., 193 AD2d 398 (1st Dept 1993). However, the statute does not mandate a finding of derivative neglect. Matter of Daniella HH, 236 AD2d 715 (3rd Dept 1997); Matter of Rasheda S., 183 AD2d 770 (2nd Dept 1992).

Evidence of the sexual abuse of one child by itself sometimes may not establish a case of derivative neglect of others. Matter of Akia "KK", 282 AD2d 839 (3rd Dept 2001). In determining whether the sexual abuse of one child establishes derivative neglect of another, the courts have considered such factors as the nature of the duration of the direct abuse, the circumstances surrounding its commission and whether, on the whole, it can be said to evidence fundamental flaws in the respondent's understanding of the duties of parenthood. Matter of Amanda LL, 195 AD2d 708 (3rd Dept 1993). In cases of sexual abuse, courts often make a derivative finding as to a child who is present in the home at the times the sexual abuse occurred, regardless of whether the child saw the sexual abuse of the other child. In Matter of Brandon M. (Luis M.), 94 AD3d 520 (1st Dept 2012), the court made derivative findings when one of the subject children witnessed the sexual abuse and the other child was present in the apartment at the time the abuse took place. Likewise, in Matter of Jani Faith B. (Craig S.), 104 AD3d 508 (1st Dept 2013), the First Department upheld a finding of derivative abuse of the appellant's son where the appellant's stepdaughter testified that the appellant's son was present in the apartment and had walked into the room while appellant was sexually abusing the stepdaughter. Likewise, courts have found derivative neglect in cases where the abuse or neglect was repeated (see In re Rebecca X., 18 AD3d 896 [3d Dept 2005]), involved violence (see Matter of Christina BB., 305 AD2d 735 [2003]), or was perpetrated on multiple victims (see Matter of Shaun X., 300 AD2d 772 [2002]).

The Respondent cites to Matter of Cadejah AA, 33 AD3d 1155 (2006), a case out of the Third Department that affirmed a lower court's ruling that a father who admitted to single act of voyeurism with regard to his teenage step-daughter did not derivatively neglected his own son as there was no evidence that either child was aware of the father's behavior or as to any impact the father's conduct had on his then three-year old biological son. The court in Matter of Cadejah AA found that, although differences in gender and parentage between a child who has been [*9]directly abused or neglected and those alleged to be derivatively neglected certainly will not preclude a derivative finding of neglect, those factors were relevant in determining whether the father's conduct placed his own children at risk of harm. Id. Unlike the facts in Matter of Cadejah AA, the Respondent here is the biologically father of all of the children, two of the children (GRD and AND) were actually aware of the Respondent's actions, the acts alleged involve more than just one occurrence, and the evidence establishes that all of the children were present in the home during the incidents of sexual abuse and therefore could have walked in on the Respondent sexually abusing RD at any time. Indeed, the child GRD even knew he was asked to leave the basement so that the Respondent could have access to RD in the shower. The record here is clear that the Respondent not only directly abused his daughter RD, but that he placed his other five children at imminent risk of harm. Where, as here, the evidence of the abuse demonstrates a respondent's parental judgment and impulse control are so defective as to create a substantial risk of harm to any child in his care, derivative findings are appropriate. Matter of Kylani R. (Kyreem B.), 93 AD3d 556 (1st Dept 2012).

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, this Court finds that the Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Respondent sexually abused the child RD, pursuant to Family Court Act Section 1012(e) (iii), in that the Respondent committed sex offenses against her as defined by Penal Law Sections 130.52 (forcible touching) and 130.65 (sexual abuse in the first degree) by touching her breast on one occasion and touching her vagina on another occasion. Further, the Court finds that the Petitioner has met their burden in establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the children AND, GRD, GAD, ARD and ND were derivatively neglected as a result of the Respondent's abuse of the subject child RD.

This constitutes the decision of the Court.

Dated: August 2, 2017

Hon. Sarah P. Cooper, JFC Footnotes

Footnote 1:On consent of all parties, the child RD testified via closed-circuit television.

Footnote 2:For example, the attorney for the Petitioner asked RD if the Respondent inappropriately touched her more than five times which RD answered in the affirmative, and less than ten times, which she also answered in the affirmative. In response to a question from the attorney for the three younger children regarding how many times the Respondent "did something to her", RD replied six or seven times. When Respondent's counsel asked the child if she had told the interviewer at the Children's Advocacy Center that the Respondent had touched her five or six times, the child answered "yes". Each response is consistent with the child's statement during the interview at the Child Advocacy Clinic that the Respondent abused her four or five times in addition to the first incident.