| Matter of Diana M.T. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 10394 [57 AD3d 1492] |
| December 31, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Diana M.T. and Another, Infants. Allegany CountyDepartment of Social Services, Respondent; Robert A.T., Appellant. |
—[*1] David J. Guiney, County Attorney, Belmont (Leslie J. Haggstrom of counsel), forpetitioner-respondent. Annette M. Harding, Law Guardian, Wellsville, for Diana M.T. and Haannah T.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Allegany County (Thomas P. Brown, J.), enteredOctober 22, 2007 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order, interalia, terminated the parental rights of respondent.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order that terminated his parental rights withrespect to his two daughters and denied his request for post-termination visitation with them. Contraryto the contention of the father, there is clear and convincing evidence supporting Family Court'sdetermination that he is "unable, by reason of mental illness . . . , to provide proper andadequate care for [the] child[ren,] who [have] been in the care of [petitioner] for the period of one yearimmediately prior to the date on which the petition [was] filed in the court" (Social Services Law§ 384-b [4] [c]). The evidence, including the testimony of two court-appointed psychologistscalled to testify by petitioner and a third psychologist called to testify by the Law Guardian, establishesthat the father has a personality disorder not otherwise specified that, combined with alcoholdependency and posttraumatic stress disorder, would prevent him from providing proper and adequatecare for the children (see Matter ofAlexander James R., 48 AD3d 820 [2008]; Matter of Charles FF., 44 AD3d 1137, 1138 [2007], lv denied9 NY3d 817 [2008]; Matter of LashawnShanteal R., 14 AD3d 467 [2005]). Although the psychologist who treated the father testifiedon his behalf that the father could provide proper care to the children if he were gradually given theresponsibilities of a caregiver, with a system in place to provide adequate treatment and support for hisalcohol, mental health, housing and financial problems, the father's psychologist substantially concurredwith the diagnosis of petitioner's experts and that of the Law Guardian. Inasmuch as the father wasunable to maintain such a system throughout the proceedings despite the assistance of petitioner, weconclude that "the mere possibility that the [father] might be [*2]capable of providing adequate care at some indefinite point in the futuredoes not warrant denial of the petition" (Alexander James R., 48 AD3d at 821; see Matter of Dominique R., 38 AD3d211 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 816 [2007]; Matter of Steven M., 37 AD3d 1072 [2007]). Finally, contrary to thefurther contention of the father, the court properly denied his request for post-termination visitationinasmuch as he failed to establish that such contact would be in the best interests of the children (see Matter of Kahlil S., 35 AD3d1164, 1165-1666 [2006], lv dismissed 8 NY3d 977 [2007]). Present—Scudder,P.J., Martoche, Smith, Green and Gorski, JJ.