Matter of Robert K.
2008 NY Slip Op 09177 [56 AD3d 353]
November 20, 2008
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, January 7, 2009


In the Matter of Robert K. and Others, Infants. Tanya L.J.,Appellant; Jewish Child Care Association of New York, Respondent.

[*1]Randall Carmel, Syosset, for appellant.

Law Offices of James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York (Dawn M. Orsatti of counsel), forrespondent.

Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Amy Hausknecht of counsel), LawGuardian.

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. Hoffman, J.), entered on or about January 4,2007, which, to the extent appealed from, upon a finding of mental illness, terminatedrespondent's parental rights to the subject children and committed their custody and guardianshipto petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption,unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Clear and convincing evidence, including expert testimony from a court-appointedpsychologist, who examined respondent for several hours and reviewed all of her availablemedical records, supported the determination that respondent is presently and for the foreseeablefuture unable, by reason of mental illness, to provide proper and adequate care for her children(see Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c]; 6 [a]). The psychologist testified thatrespondent suffered from, inter alia, a longstanding depressive disorder with chronic psychoticfeatures. She lacked insight into her condition, was noncompliant with her medication and theprognosis for improvement in her condition was characterized as poor (see Matter of Shanta C., 47 AD3d422, 423 [2008]; Matter of MitchellRandell K., 41 AD3d 119 [2007]).

Although the psychologist examined respondent almost two years prior to the fact-findinghearing, his detailed testimony supported his conclusions that due to respondent's mental illness,she was unable to parent in the present and for the foreseeable future (see Matter of JoyceT., 65 NY2d 39, 45-46 [1985]). Furthermore, respondent's testimony that at the time of thehearing, [*2]she had recently participated in psychiatriccounseling and started complying with drug therapy does not warrant a different conclusion.Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Catterson and DeGrasse, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.