Opinion
79 CAF 20-00636
03-11-2022
In the MATTER OF JION T. Erie County Department of Social Services, Petitioner-Respondent; v. Jill H., Respondent-Appellant.
DAVID J. PAJAK, ALDEN, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. REBECCA HOFFMAN, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. DAVID C. SCHOPP, THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (RUSSELL E. FOX OF COUNSEL), ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
DAVID J. PAJAK, ALDEN, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
REBECCA HOFFMAN, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
DAVID C. SCHOPP, THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (RUSSELL E. FOX OF COUNSEL), ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, terminated her parental rights with respect to the subject child on the ground of mental illness. We affirm.
Contrary to the mother's contention, we conclude that petitioner established " ‘by clear and convincing evidence that [the mother], by reason of mental illness, is presently and for the foreseeable future unable to provide proper and adequate care for [the] child[ ]’ " ( Matter of Jason B. [PhyllisB.] , 160 A.D.3d 1433, 1434, 72 N.Y.S.3d 868 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 902, 84 N.Y.S.3d 856, 109 N.E.3d 1156, 2018 WL 4782467 [2018]; see Matter of Jason B. [Gerald B.] , 155 A.D.3d 1575, 1575, 63 N.Y.S.3d 630 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 901, 2018 WL 1414507 [2018] ). Testimony from petitioner's expert psychologist overwhelmingly established that the mother suffered from mental illness and that the child "would be in danger of being neglected if [he] were returned to [the mother's] care at the present time or in the foreseeable future" ( JasonB. , 160 A.D.3d at 1434, 72 N.Y.S.3d 868 ).
The mother contends that reversal is required because petitioner's case consisted almost entirely of inadmissible hearsay. We reject that contention. Even assuming, arguendo, that her contention is fully preserved (see generally Matter of Raymond H. [Dana C.] , 186 A.D.3d 1125, 1126, 127 N.Y.S.3d 380 [4th Dept. 2020] ) and that Family Court improperly admitted hearsay into evidence at the fact-finding hearing (see generally Matter of Leon RR , 48 N.Y.2d 117, 123, 421 N.Y.S.2d 863, 397 N.E.2d 374 [1979] ), we conclude that any error by the court in admitting the challenged testimony is harmless (see Matter of Norah T. [Norman T.] , 165 A.D.3d 1644, 1645, 85 N.Y.S.3d 326 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 915, 2019 WL 637865 [2019] ; Matter of Cyle F. [Alexander F.] , 155 A.D.3d 1626, 1626-1627, 64 N.Y.S.3d 842 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 911, 71 N.Y.S.3d 5, 94 N.E.3d 487, 2018 WL 1321028 [2018]; Matter of Alyshia M.R. , 53 A.D.3d 1060, 1061, 861 N.Y.S.2d 551 [4th Dept. 2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 707, 868 N.Y.S.2d 599, 897 N.E.2d 1083 [2008] ).