| Matter of B. Mc. (Dawn Mc.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06607 [99 AD3d 713] |
| October 3, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of B. Mc., an Infant. Nassau County Department ofSocial Services, Respondent; Dawn Mc., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of B. Mc.,an Infant. Nassau County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Michael K., Appellant.(Proceeding No. 2.) |
—[*1] William A. Sheeckutz, Massapequa, N.Y., for appellant Michael K. John Ciampoli, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (David A. Tauster of counsel; Jedidiah M.Bernstein on the brief), for respondent. Thomas E. Draycott, Brightwaters, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In two related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminateparental rights on the grounds of mental illness and permanent neglect, the mother appeals, andthe father separately appeals, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order offact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Nassau County (Dane, J.), dated April 5, 2011,as, after a fact-finding hearing, found that they each are presently and for the foreseeable futureunable, by reason of mental illness, to provide proper and adequate care for the subject child, anddetermined that they each had permanently neglected the subject child, terminated the parentalrights of each of them, and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject child to theCommissioner of the Nassau County Department of Social Services for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
The mother's contention that the Family Court erred in considering the reports and testimonyof the forensic evaluator because they were based on hearsay is unpreserved for appellate review(see Matter of Aaron W. v ShannonW., 96 AD3d 960 [2012]). In any event, the mother consented to the admission of theforensic evaluator's reports. Thus, the Family Court properly admitted the reports into evidence(see Matter of Berrouet v Greaves,35 AD3d 460, 461 [2006]).
Contrary to the parents' contentions, the Family Court properly found that there was clear andconvincing evidence that each of them is presently and for the foreseeable future unable, byreason of mental illness, to provide proper and adequate care for the subject child (seeSocial [*2]Services Law § 384-b [4] [c]). A licensedpsychologist, who interviewed the mother and reviewed her medical records, concluded that themother suffers from "schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type," and opined that due to the nature ofher illness, the serious and enduring deficits in her ability to parent, and her lack of insight abouther illness, the mother is presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mentalillness, to provide proper and adequate care for the subject child. The psychologist alsointerviewed the father and determined that he suffers from "personality disorder, NOS withschizoid and paranoid features," which "manifests as a marked and persistent social detachmentand a pattern of distrust and suspiciousness." The psychologist opined that the father has "little orno insight into his personality disorder or the limitations that it might create for him as a parent,"and noted that despite repeated recommendations that he participate in psychotherapy, he had"apparently entirely failed to do so." The psychologist concluded that the father is presently andfor the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness, to provide proper and adequate carefor the subject child. This evidence supported the findings of the Family Court (see Matter of Dominique Larissa Blue M.[Yasmin M.], 84 AD3d 962, 963 [2011]; Matter of Dominique R., 38 AD3d 211 [2007]; Matter of Karyn Katrina D., 19 AD3d592, 593 [2005]; Matter of DayjahAnn B., 13 AD3d 518, 519 [2004]).
Further, the Family Court properly found that the parents permanently neglected the subjectchild. The petitioner established, by clear and convincing evidence, that it exercised diligentefforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship by, among other things, developing aservice plan, facilitating regular visitation with the child, and referring the parents to parentingclasses (see Matter of Hadiyyah J.M.[Fatima D.R.], 91 AD3d 874, 874-875 [2012]; Matter of Danielle Joy K., 60 AD3d 948 [2009]). Despite theseefforts, the parents failed to plan for the child's future (see Social Services Law §384-b [7] [c]; Matter of Hadiyyah J.M. [Fatima D.R.], 91 AD3d at 875).
Accordingly, the Family Court properly terminated the parents' parental rights on the groundsof both mental illness and permanent neglect. Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Belen and Roman, JJ.,concur.