| Matter of Charles FF. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07796 [44 AD3d 1137] |
| October 18, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Charles FF. and Another, Alleged to be theChildren of a Mentally Retarded and Mentally Ill Parent. Columbia County Department of SocialServices, Respondent; Mitzi E., Appellant. |
—[*1] James A. Carlucci, Columbia County Department of Social Services, Hudson, forrespondent. Alexander W. Bloomstein, Law Guardian, Hillsdale.
Mugglin, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Columbia County (Nichols, J.),entered January 9, 2007, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant toSocial Services Law § 384-b, to adjudicate respondent's children to be the children of amentally retarded and mentally ill parent, and terminated respondent's parental rights.
Petitioner brought this proceeding approximately 18 months after respondent voluntarilyplaced her two sons (born in 1998 and 2000) with petitioner. Family Court granted the petitionfinding that respondent cannot provide proper care for her children by reason of mental illnessand mental retardation (see Social Services Law § 384-b) and terminated herparental rights. Respondent appeals arguing that petitioner's evidence was legally insufficient toestablish that her mental condition renders her incapable of properly parenting her children andthat terminating her parental rights is contrary to the children's best interests. As we areunpersuaded by these [*2]arguments, we affirm.
Respondent's argument that there is insufficient evidence of mental retardation or illness ispremised on petitioner's expert having testified that proper medication might ameliorate some ofrespondent's problems. The expert's unrefuted testimony was, in substance, that in addition totesting in the borderline range of intellectual limitation, respondent suffers from panic disorderwith agoraphobia and borderline personality disorder, and only the panic disorder mightsuccessfully be treated if respondent could physically tolerate the medication. Not only wouldmedication provide only a partial solution, the possibility that respondent's condition mayimprove in the future is insufficient to overturn Family Court's determination (see Matter ofTrebor UU., 295 AD2d 648, 650 [2002]). According deference to Family Court'sdeterminations with regard to credibility and fact finding (see Matter of Evelyn B., 37 AD3d 991, 992 [2007]; Matter of Michael WW., 29 AD3d1105, 1106 [2006]), we conclude that clear and convincing medical evidence supports itsdecision that respondent is "presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mentalillness or mental retardation, to provide proper and adequate care for" her children (SocialServices Law § 384-b [4] [c]; see Matter of Evelyn B., 37 AD3d at 992; Matterof Michael WW., 29 AD3d at 1106).
Next, respondent's argument that termination of her parental rights was not in the bestinterests of the children is based on the existing bond between respondent and her children, thepossibility that her condition might improve, the Law Guardian's opposition to immediatetermination of parental rights and the lack of evidence concerning the children's adoptionprospects. First, as we have already observed, while respondent's panic disorder might improvewith medication, the evidence establishes that her personality disorder is largely untreatable andthat her IQ will not increase. Second, Family Court correctly denied the Law Guardian's requestfor a suspended judgment as there is no statutory authority for such a resolution in this type ofcase (see Matter of Sarah-Beth H.,34 AD3d 242, 243 [2006]). Third, the record convincingly demonstrates respondent'sinability to parent the children, making it in their best interests to be freed for a permanent home,despite the existence of the bond between parent and children (see e.g. Matter of JoyceT., 65 NY2d 39 [1985]). Finally, parental rights may be terminated even though no adoptivehome has yet been found (see Matter ofPeter GG., 33 AD3d 1104, 1105 [2006]).
Cardona, P.J., Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.