In re Michele Amanda
N.
Matter of Matter of Michele Amanda N. (Elizabeth N.)
2012
NY Slip Op 02401
Decided
on March 29, 2012
Appellate
Division, First Department
Published
by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This
opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the
Official Reports.
Decided
on March 29, 2012
Tom,
J.P., DeGrasse, Freedman, Richter, Román, JJ.
7233
[*1]In
re Michele Amanda N., A Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc.,
and
Elizabeth N., Respondent-Appellant, Cardinal McCloskey
Services, Petitioner-Respondent.
George E. Reed, Jr.,
Rosin
counsel), for respondent.
Tamara
A. Steckler, The Legal Aid
Society,
Stern of counsel), attorney for the child.
Order,
Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.),
entered on or about December 23, 2010, which, upon a fact-finding determination
that respondent-appellant suffers from a mental illness, terminated her
parental rights to the subject child and transferred the custody and
guardianship of the child to the Commissioner of Social Services and
petitioner-respondent Cardinal McCloskey Services for the purpose of adoption,
unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner
agency presented clear and convincing evidence demonstrating that respondent is
presently and for the foreseeable future unable to provide proper and adequate
care for her child by reason of mental illness (see Social Services Law §§
384-b[4][c], [6][a]). The agency's submissions included unrebutted
expert testimony that respondent suffers from a longstanding paranoid
schizophrenic condition that has prevented her from acting in accordance with
the child's needs, as well as the testifying psychologist's detailed report,
which was prepared after a 90-minute interview with the respondent, a 50-minute
period of psychological and psychoeducational
testing, a review of respondent's prior mental health treatment records,
including those from her adolescent years, and petitioner's agency records see
Matter of Isaiah J. [Janice J.], 82 AD3d 651 [2011]; Matter of Roberto A. [Altagracia A.], 73 AD3d 501 [2010], lv
denied 15 NY3d 703 [2010]). The court properly denied respondent's request for
post-termination visitation with the child, in view of the fact that the child
is currently living with her pre-adoptive parents. Nor is there any evidence
such visits would have been in the child's best interests (see Matter of April
S., 307 AD2d 204 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 504
[2003]). [*2]
We
have reviewed the respondent's remaining contentions, including her challenges
to the reliability of the testifying psychologist's conclusions, and find them
to be unpreserved or unavailing.
THIS
CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF
THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED:
MARCH 29, 2012
CLERK