| Matter of Ayodele Ademoli J. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09031 [45 AD3d 686] |
| November 13, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Ayodele Ademoli J. Catholic Home Bureau forDependent Children, Respondent; Elizabeth O., Appellant. |
—[*1] Magovern & Sclafani, New York, N.Y. (Megan Eiss-Proctor and Fredrick J. Magovern ofcounsel), for respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Marcia Egger of counsel), LawGuardian.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate the mother'sparental rights by reason of her mental illness, the mother appeals from an order of fact-findingand disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Salinitro, J.), dated May 18, 2005, which,after a hearing, terminated her parental rights and transferred guardianship and custody of thechild to the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York and the Catholic HomeBureau for Dependent Children.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children, the petitioning agency, established by clearand convincing evidence that the mother was unable to properly and adequately care for herchild, now and in the foreseeable future, by reason of mental illness (see Social ServicesLaw § 384-b [3] [g]; [4] [c]; Matter of Harlem Dowling-Westside Ctr. for Children &Family Servs. v Marion L.C., 264 AD2d 845 [1999]; cf. Matter of Hime Y., 52NY2d 242, 245, 249 [1981]). The testimony elicited from the agency's expert psychiatristestablished that the mother suffered from schizophrenia. The evidence established that, due toher disorder, the mother was unable to act in accordance with her [*2]child's needs. The expert psychiatrist also opined that due to thenature of the mother's condition and her denial of it, as well as her denial of her child's specialneeds, the child would be at risk in the future if returned to the mother's care. This evidenceconstituted clear and convincing proof of the mother's inability to care for her child, now and inthe foreseeable future (see Matter ofWinston Lloyd D., 7 AD3d 706, 707 [2004]; Matter of Danielle C., 6 AD3d 530, 531 [2004]; Matter ofJuliana V., 249 AD2d 314 [1998]).
The mother's remaining contentions do not require reversal. Santucci, J.P., Lifson, Covelloand McCarthy, JJ., concur.