Opinion
02-07-2017
In re PRISETEN T., A Dependent Child under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Miatta T., Respondent–Appellant, Catholic Guardian Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
Dora M. Lassinger, East Rockaway, for appellant. Magovern & Sclafani, Mineola (Joanna M. Roberson of counsel), for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Riti P. Singh of counsel), attorney for the child.
Dora M. Lassinger, East Rockaway, for appellant.
Magovern & Sclafani, Mineola (Joanna M. Roberson of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Riti P. Singh of counsel), attorney for the child.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., ANDRIAS, MOSKOWITZ, KAPNICK, KAHN, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Emily M. Olshansky, J.), entered on or about November 5, 2015, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent mother suffers from a mental illness within the meaning of the Social Services Law, terminated her parental rights to the subject child and committed custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.Clear and convincing evidence, including the uncontroverted expert testimony of the court-appointed psychologist who testified that respondent suffers from schizophrenia, supports the determination that she is presently and for the foreseeable future unable to provide proper and adequate care for the child and that the child would be in danger of becoming a neglected child if he were placed in the mother's care (Social Services Law § 384–b[4][c], [6][a] ).
Petitioner submitted, among other things, the psychology expert's detailed report, which was prepared after an interview with the mother and a review of her mental health records (see Matter of Isis S.C. [Doreen S.], 98 A.D.3d 905, 905–906, 950 N.Y.S.2d 902 [1st Dept.2012] ). The expert noted respondent's schizophrenia diagnosis, her limited insight into her condition, her recurrent hospitalizations, and her inconsistent treatment (see Matter of Akiko Miami–Lyn A. [Ann Althea A.], 139 A.D.3d 617, 33 N.Y.S.3d 190 [1st Dept.2016] ). In addition, respondent's testimony demonstrated that she was unable to acknowledge the existence of her mental illness and did not believe that she needed medication (see Matter of Mar De Luz R. [Luz R.], 95 A.D.3d 423, 942 N.Y.S.2d 866 [1st Dept.2012] ).
Contrary to respondent's contention, the court did not err in declining to conduct a dispositional hearing prior to finding that termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child (see Matter of Joyce T., 65 N.Y.2d 39, 46, 489 N.Y.S.2d 705, 478 N.E.2d 1306 [1985] ; Matter of Ashanti A., 56 A.D.3d 373, 373–374, 869 N.Y.S.2d 20 [1st Dept2008] ).
We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.