| Matter of Erica D. (Maria D.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 00008 [80 AD3d 423] |
| January 4, 2011)<> |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Erica D., an Infant. Maria D., Appellant; NewAlternatives for Children, Inc., Respondent. |
—[*1] Law Offices of James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York (James M. Abramson of counsel), forrespondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Amy Hausknecht of counsel), Attorneyfor the Child.
Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered or on aboutJanuary 5, 2010, which, upon a finding of mental retardation, terminated the respondent mother'sparental rights to the child, and committed custody and guardianship of the subject child jointly topetitioner and the Administration for Children's Services, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that respondent is presently and for the foreseeablefuture unable, by reason of mental retardation, to provide proper and adequate care for the subjectchild, who was diagnosed with Down's syndrome. Testing by a senior psychologist employed by theFamily Court, indicated that respondent's full scale IQ was 48, which the expert characterized as"extremely low." The director of the Family Court Mental Health Services opined, after interviewingrespondent and reviewing her records, that she was of "subaverage intellectual functioning withimpairment in adaptive behavior." He stated that if the child were returned to her care, the child wouldbe in danger of becoming a neglected child, now and for the foreseeable future. This evidence wassufficient to satisfy the statutory standard (see Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c];Matter of Joyce T., 65 NY2d 39, 50 [1985]).
The mother contends that her due process rights were violated by limitations the court placed onthe testimony of lay witnesses concerning her ability to care for her other child and on broad basedgeneralized anecdotal evidence. However, this claim is raised for the first time on appeal, and isunpreserved (see Matter of Kimberly CarolynJ., 37 AD3d 174, 175 [2007], lv dismissed 8 NY3d 968 [2007]).
On the merits, the court properly excluded irrelevant testimony and evidence.Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.