| Matter of Cerenithy Ecksthine B. (Christian B.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00719 [92 AD3d 417] |
| February 2, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Cerenithy Ecksthine B. and Another, ChildrenAlleged to be Neglected. Christian B., Appellant, Commissioner of Administration for Children'sServices, Respondent. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Marta Ross of counsel), forrespondent. Cabelly & Calderon, Jamaica (Lewis S. Calderon of counsel), attorney for thechildren.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about February1, 2011, which, after a fact-finding hearing, determined that respondent father neglected thesubject children due to untreated mental illness, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The record establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there was a "substantialprobability" that the father's untreated mental condition would place the children at imminent riskof harm if they were released to him (Matter of Ronald Anthony G. [Sammantha J.], 83 AD3d 608[2011]; Family Ct Act § 1012 [f]). The psychiatric records entered into evidence at thefact-finding hearing showed that the 20-year-old appellant-father had a history of multiplehospitalizations for unstable moods and aggressive behavior. Appellant was hospitalized in 2000for choking his mother, and in 2003, after he again threatened to hurt his mother and siblings.During his 2003 hospitalization, he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and attention deficithyperactivity disorder. The nursing admission summary for this hospital stay stated thatoutpatient treatment had been unsuccessful due to appellant's noncompliance, and the psychiatricevaluation noted that appellant would not be "clear thinking" without his medication.
In 2007, appellant was again hospitalized and diagnosed with a major depressive disorderand a disruptive behavior disorder. The intake psychiatric assessment form noted that he had nottaken his medication for six months, and as a result, had become increasingly threatening andvolatile, had trouble controlling his anger and had a high frequency of suicidal thoughts. TheNursing Treatment Plan included a finding that appellant was unable to find insight into thebehaviors which precipitated his hospitalization, and noted his continued resistance to taking hismedication.
The treating psychologist conducted an evaluation of appellant at the end of his nearlythree-week hospitalization in 2007. The psychologist concluded that, based on appellant's [*2]limited capacity for introspection, cognitive deficiencies, anddifficulty dealing with his emotions, appellant may give way to "explosive outbursts, periods oftransient psychological disorganization, or gross lapses in impulse control" when his feelings arearoused. Although appellant was not determined to be psychotic, he was at an increased risk forsuicidal and self-destructive behaviors. Notably, the doctor further concluded that appellant'sdisruptive behavior disorder would likely re-emerge rapidly once he was out of the structured andsupportive hospital environment and returned to a more complex and demanding one. Lastly,appellant's treatment plan upon discharge included individual and group therapy as well asprescribed medication.
The mother of the children testified that she knew appellant was bipolar and he was in denialabout his mental condition. She testified that she had never seen him take any medication, andthat prior to the neglect petition being filed, he was not in therapy. The mother also stated thatappellant engaged in erratic behavior that usually involved volatile mood swings. Appellantwould become angry about inconsequential things, and then, moments later, act as if nothinghappened. The foster mother for the children also testified regarding appellant's erratic andthreatening behavior. The foster mother explained that she had received numerous text messagesfrom appellant threatening her and her son.
Lastly, the caseworker's progress notes, which were admitted into evidence, stated thatappellant admitted during an interview, the day before the neglect petition was filed, that he hadbeen diagnosed as bipolar, and that he was hospitalized in 2008 for destruction of property,during which hospitalization he was again diagnosed as bipolar. Appellant also admitted duringthis interview that he was not receiving any mental health services.
Appellant's primary challenge to the neglect finding is that there is no link or causalconnection between his mental problems and any risk to the children (Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d357, 369 [2004]). Here, the evidence of appellant's mental illness is overwhelming; yet hewas not in treatment nor was he seeking it. He had been hospitalized, on more than one occasion,due to noncompliance with outpatient treatment and medication that resulted in violent physicalassaults and threats to his immediate family members (Matter of Madeline R., 214 AD2d445 [1995] ["proof of ongoing mental illness and the failure to follow through with aftercaremedication, which results in a parent's inability to care for her children in the foreseeable future,is a sufficient basis for a finding of neglect"]).
In 2007, appellant's treating psychologist concluded that his behavior disorder would rapidlyre-emerge once he was placed in more complex and demanding environments. At the time thepetition was filed, the children were approximately 2½ years old and 4 months old. Nothingin the record supports the conclusion that appellant had the self-control, judgment and insightnecessary to care for young children. Furthermore, as appellant's evaluating psychologistconcluded, complex and potentially taxing situations could send appellant into a relapse fraughtwith psychological disorganization and gross lapses in impulse control. This is a scenario thatcould be very grave for appellant's young children, who are, due to their age, unable to defendagainst or report any mistreatment (Matter of Noah Jeremiah J. [Kimberly J.], 81 AD3d 37, 44 [2010]).Although two years had passed since appellant's last hospital admission, the agency establishedthat he did not enter into medical treatment nor was he compliant with medication requirements.
Appellant incorrectly contends that Matter of Jayvien E. (Marisol T.) (70 AD3d 430 [2010]) warrantsreversal of the neglect finding. In Jayvien E., after the appellant-mother gave [*3]birth to her son, a medical student reported overhearing her callingthe baby "greedy" and "too much" (at 431). As a result, the hospital conducted a psychiatricevaluation of the mother. The subsequent patient care sheets, completed by nurses tending to themother, noted that she engaged appropriately with her child and did not display any psychiatricsymptoms. Further, the mother explained her comment was in reference to her son being hungryshortly after she had already fed him, and the agency failed to produce a witness that observedthe mother's allegedly bizarre behavior.
Here, by contrast, the record, which includes testimony from the children's mother and fostermother, demonstrates that appellant had been diagnosed with a major depressive disorder anddisruptive behavior disorder, and admitted to being bipolar. He was, however, in denial about hismental condition, was not taking medication or in therapy, and required treatment to prevent arapid re-emergence of his disorders and the attendant explosive outbursts or gross lapses inimpulse control that could accompany such re-emergence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Catterson,DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.