Opinion
2011-11-29
In re SHARON CRYSTAL F., A Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc.,Nicole Valerie D., etc., et al., Respondents–Appellants,Catholic Guardian Society & Home Bureau, et al., Petitioners–Respondents.
Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, for Nicole Valerie D., appellant. Dora M. Lassinger, East Rockaway, for John F., appellant.
Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, for Nicole Valerie D., appellant. Dora M. Lassinger, East Rockaway, for John F., appellant. Joseph T. Gatti, New York, for respondents.Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Patricia Colella of counsel), attorney for the child.SAXE, J.P., FRIEDMAN, RENWICK, DeGRASSE, FREEDMAN, JJ.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan Knipps, J.), entered on or about June 21, 2010, which, upon findings that respondent mother was unable to care for the subject child due to mental illness and that respondent father permanently neglected the child, terminated the parental rights of the mother and the father and committed custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Clear and convincing evidence established that the mother suffered from mental illness as defined by Social Services Law § 384–b(4)(c) and (6)(a) ( see e.g. Matter of Genesis S. [Irene Elizabeth S.], 70 A.D.3d 570, 895 N.Y.S.2d 85 [2010] ). A court-appointed psychologist examined the mother and determined that she suffers from a mental illness which impairs her ability to care for the child now and for the foreseeable future. He noted that she had been hospitalized numerous times for schizophrenia, paranoid type, and that despite medication, she was acutely symptomatic when he interviewed her.
There is also clear and convincing evidence that the agency exerted diligent efforts to reunite the father and the child, and that notwithstanding such diligent efforts, the father permanently neglected his daughter ( see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][a] ). The agency's progress notes reflected numerous attempts to encourage the father to comply with the service plan, but he refused to obtain a mental health evaluation, complete a drug treatment program, and participate in various referrals, including a domestic violence program ( see Matter of Robert Calvin R., 59 A.D.3d 265, 873 N.Y.S.2d 297 [2009] ). Although the father visited with the child on an intermittent basis when he was not incarcerated, this was insufficient to overcome the evidence of his failure to address the problems that led to the child's placement.
A preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the best interests of the child were served by the termination of the parents' parental rights to free the child for adoption by the foster mother, who tended to the child's special needs ( see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 147–148, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824 [1984] ). The child had resided in the foster home for almost her entire life and was thriving in the foster home. The court properly found that a suspended judgment was not warranted since the child should not have to wait any longer to obtain stability in her life based on the father's plan to turn his life around after his release from prison ( see Matter of Lorenda M., 2 A.D.3d 370, 371, 770 N.Y.S.2d 70 [2003] ).