| Matter of Princess Ashley C. (Florida S.C.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05249 [96 AD3d 682] |
| June 28, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Princess Ashley C. and Another, Children Allegedto be Neglected. Florida S.C., Appellant; Administration for Children's Services et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Graham Morrison of counsel), forAdministration for Children's Services, respondent. Israel P. Inyama, New York, for Carol E., respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), Attorneyfor the Children.
Order of disposition and custody, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.),entered on or about June 27, 2011, which, upon a fact-finding determination that the motherneglected the subject children, granted the custody petition of their paternal aunt and placed themin her custody, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
"A preponderance of the evidence supports Family Court's finding that the [children]'sphysical, mental or emotional condition was in imminent danger of becoming impaired as aresult of the mother's long-standing history of mental illness and resistance to treatment" (Matter of Naomi S. [Hadar S.], 87AD3d 936, 937 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 804 [2012]; see also Family CtAct § 1046 [b] [i]; § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). The mother suffers from long-standing severemental illness, which is characterized by major depression, anxiety and trichotillomania, ananxiety disorder that manifested in her pulling out her hair and peeling off the skin on her feet.The record shows her lack of insight into the effect of her illness on the subject children, as wellas deterioration of her condition due to noncompliance with treatment (see Matter of Christopher R. [LecriegB.B.], 78 AD3d 586, 586-587 [2010]). Her mental illness not only created an imminentrisk of harm to the children, but resulted in actual impairment, as the condition caused her to beunable to provide them with adequate supervision and to permit them to have excessive schoolabsences. In addition, her condition often rendered her unable to provide the children withadequate food (see e.g. Matter of AliyahB. [Denise J.], 87 AD3d 943, 943 [2011]; Matter of Lavountae A., 57 AD3d 1382, 1382 [2008], affd12 NY3d 832 [2009]).[*2]
The court exercised sound discretion in denying themother's request to assign an independent social worker to interview the children to explorereinstating contact between her and the children. The children, on several occasions, hadpreviously been interviewed by therapists, social workers, caseworkers, and their attorney as totheir feelings regarding having contact with their parents. Moreover, throughout the entirety ofthe proceedings, the children's stance on having no contact with the mother remained unaltered(see e.g. Matter of Noah Jeremiah J.[Kimberly J.], 81 AD3d 37, 41 [2010]).
Finally, the mother did not object, on the grounds of the court's purported inability toproperly analyze the evidence, to the court's holding a consolidated custody and dispositionalhearing, thus, this argument is unpreserved on appeal (see Matter of Crystal P. [Andrea L.], 93 AD3d 576 [2012]). In anyevent, the court properly considered first, a disposition with regard to the neglect case and then,petitioner Carol E.'s custody petition, and determined that awarding custody to her was in thebest interests of the children, given the evidence that they were thriving and wished to remain inher care (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). Concur—Saxe,J.P., Friedman, Renwick, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.