April 1, 1996
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Tejeda, J., Hepner, J.).
Ordered that the fact-finding order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from the dispositional order is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated June 2, 1993, extending placement is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.
The mother's appeal from so much of the dispositional order as placed the child in the care of the Commissioner of Social Services must be dismissed as academic because the one-year placement period has expired, and a subsequent order extending placement effective March 25, 1992, was entered, from which no appeal has been taken ( see, Matter of Eddie E., 219 A.D.2d 719; Matter of F. Children, 199 A.D.2d 81). The mother's appeal from the order extending placement dated June 2, 1993, must be dismissed as academic since that one-year period has also expired. Moreover, the mother's parental rights were subsequently terminated. Therefore, "any corrective measures which this court might have taken * * * would have no practical effect" ( Matter of New York City Dept. of Social Servs. [Kalisha A.], 208 A.D.2d 844). Since the underlying finding of abuse constitutes a "permanent and significant stigma", the appeal from the fact-finding order which found that the child was abused is not academic ( see, Matter of Eddie E., supra, at 719; Matter of H. Children, 156 A.D.2d 520).
The Commissioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the mother sexually abused and permitted her brother to sexually abuse the child ( see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112). Over a period of approximately one year the child gave consistent accounts of the abuse to a guidance counselor, a caseworker, a physician, and a child psychologist. These out-of-court statements were corroborated by the child's in-camera testimony. Although the child's testimony was unsworn, it was taken in the presence of all counsel who had the opportunity to cross-examine him ( see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Christina F., 74 N.Y.2d 532; Matter of Jessica G., 200 A.D.2d 906). Further corroboration was provided by the validation testimony of Dr. Don Lewittes, a child psychologist who specialized in the diagnosis and treatment of child sexual abuse syndrome. Dr. Lewittes testified that the child's behavior and accounts of the abuse, which were repeated to him, were consistent with the five phases of the syndrome ( see, Matter of Nicole V., supra; Matter of Parul P., 185 A.D.2d 981, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 651, cert denied sub nom. Rashmi P. v. Commissioner of Social Servs. of N.Y., 510 U.S. 1041; Matter of Latisha V., 175 A.D.2d 839).
The mother's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and McGinity, JJ., concur.