In Matter of Tyler S., 192 Misc 2d 728 (Fam. Ct Kings Co 2002) the Court stated: Despite the concern in Verena E., that "the respondent should not be compelled by the court to facilitate her own adjudication of neglect , there is nothing in the legislative history of FCA 1047 (b) or other statutes cited by the court to indicate that the legislature also intended to extend the protections afforded by the Fifth Amendment to respondents in proceedings under Family Court Act article 10. A child protection proceeding is not a criminal prosecution. Unlike a criminal defendant, a respondent in a child protection proceeding may suffer an adverse inference from his or her silence at trial. As in any other civil proceeding, a respondent in an article 10 proceeding may be required to answer interrogatories. . Reading FCA 1038-a consistently with FCA 1038 (d), there is no evidence of a legislative intent to extend greater protection to testimonial evidence obtained from a respondent in a child protection case, than is afforded any other civil litigant whose mental condition is placed in issue by the pleadings. Rather, FCA 1038-a demonstrates that the legislature chose to impose a higher burden of discovery in those instances where evidence is obtained from the person of the respondent, and in no others. Had the legislature intended to impose stricter standards for the discovery of testimonial evidence, then the legislature would have been equally specific. (Matter of Tyler S., 192 Misc. 2d 728, 748 N.Y.S.2d 215 at pg. 220.)