Opinion
July 20, 1987
Appeal from the Family Court, Nassau County (Feiden, J.).
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In its oral decision, delivered immediately after the fact-finding hearing, the Family Court held that "by a preponderance of the evidence, which is clear and convincing [the mother] is presently and in the foreseeable future unable by reason of mental illness, to provide proper and adequate care". In the ensuing fact-finding order, the Family Court stated that "[b]ased on the preponderance of clear and convincing evidence [the mother] is presently incapacitated and possibly in the future will be incapacitated by reason of Mental Illness".
The mother contends that, by its language, the Family Court failed to find that she would, for the foreseeable future, be unable to provide proper and adequate care for the child (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [c]) by "clear and convincing proof" (Social Services Law § 384-b [g]; see, Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745).
We disagree. When viewed in context, the decision indicates that the Family Court employed the correct statutory and constitutional standards in arriving at its determination. Moreover, upon our evaluation of the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing, we conclude that the allegations of the petition were supported by clear and convincing evidence (see, Matter of Michael B., 58 N.Y.2d 71, 73; Matter of Schmerer v McElroy, 105 A.D.2d 840).
Finally, we reject the mother's contention that the psychiatrist appointed by the Family Court to examine her and evaluate her condition should not have been permitted to testify merely because he performs consultation services for the County of Nassau. The record is devoid of any evidence of bias. Mollen, P.J., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.