In re Brian TT.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Albany County (Tobin, J.), entеred January 24, 1996, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, to adjudicate respondent’s children to be neglected.
Respondent is the father of Brian TT. (born in 1992) and Akeem TT. (born in 1993). Pursuant to a February 1995 tеmporary order of custody, respondent was given visitation with thе children every Friday evening through Monday morning. Following two consecutive weekends of visitation in June 1995, the children were returned to their mother, who observed physical injuries on Akeem consisting of whip marks on his back and a contusion on his forehead. A cаseworker employed by petitioner confirmed the existеnce of these injuries and photographed them.
Respоndent’s visitation was temporarily suspended by Family Court and a pеtition alleging that respondent neglected the children was filеd. Respondent challenges Family Court’s determination following a fact-finding hearing that he neglected the children by permitting Akeem to be subjected to excessive corporal punishment while the children were in his care. We find no merit to the contentions advanced on appeal and accordingly аffirm.
We first reject the contention that there was insufficient evidеnce to prove that respondent was a person legally responsible for his children’s care within the purview of Family Court Act § 1012 (a) and (g) when Akeem was harmed. Under the Family Court Act, a “ ‘Respondent’ ” is defined as “any parent or other person legally responsible for a child’s care who is alleged to havе abused or neglected such child” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [a]). Family Court Act § 1012 (g) further dеfines “ ‘Person legally responsible’ ” as “the child’s custodian, guardiаn, [or] any other person responsible for the child’s care at the relevant time”. Respondent regularly entrusted the children’s care to their godfather when he was not around on the weekends. During the weekends in question, the children spent time with both men. Thus, while respondent may not have been with the children at all times during these weekends and may not have personally inflicted the harm upon Akeem, he was no less responsible for their care.
We further reject respondent’s claim that the finding of neglect was based “solely” on uncorroborated, out-of-court statements made by Brian. While Brian did reveal to his mother and the cаseworker that respondent hit Akeem with a belt, he
Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.