From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Charles Emanuel M

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 1, 2002
293 A.D.2d 477 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

1998-05523, 1998-05524, 1998-05525

Submitted March 4, 2002.

April 1, 2002.

In three related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate the mother's parental rights, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of three orders of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Porzio, J.) (one as to each child), all dated May 28, 1998, as, after a joint fact-finding hearing, granted the respective petitions and committed the guardianship and custody of the children to the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York and to the petitioner St. Vincent's Services, Inc., for the purpose of consenting to their adoption.

Robert Marinelli, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Magovern Sclafani, New York, N.Y. (Pamela H. Howard and Frederick J. Magovern of counsel), for respondent.

Oscar Finkel, New York, N.Y. (Kimberly Schanzer and Judith Waksberg of counsel), Law Guardian for the children.

Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, LEO F. McGINITY, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


ORDERED that the orders of disposition are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Family Court that there was clear and convincing evidence that the mother is presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness, to provide proper and adequate care of the subject children (see Social Services Law § 384-b[c]; Matter of Harlem Dowling-Westside Ctr. for Children and Family Servs., [Ebony Shaquiera C.] v. Marion L. C., 264 A.D.2d 845; Matter of Juliana V. [Libia E.], 249 A.D.2d 314, 315; Matter of Virginia Denise R. [Geraldine R.], 249 A.D.2d 400; Matter of Edward R., 123 A.D.2d 866, 867; cf. Matter of Hime Y., 52 N.Y.2d 242, 248).

Contrary to the mother's contention, the psychologist's testimony regarding the prospects for the foreseeable future was unequivocal. While he testified that it was difficult to give a prognosis regarding the foreseeable future because the mother's condition was changeable and her ability to care for the children would depend on the extent to which she was symptomatic, he also unequivocally testified that the mother would not be able to provide proper and adequate parenting and that the children would always be at a certain level of risk under her care (compare Matter of Hime Y, supra, at 249).

SMITH, J.P., O'BRIEN, McGINITY and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Charles Emanuel M

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 1, 2002
293 A.D.2d 477 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

In the Matter of Charles Emanuel M

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF CHARLES EMANUEL M. (ANONYMOUS). ST. VINCENT'S SERVICES…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 1, 2002

Citations

293 A.D.2d 477 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
740 N.Y.S.2d 100

Citing Cases

In re Mtr. of Melanie

We conclude, however, that any failure of the court to set forth individual findings with respect to…