Opinion
06-02-2016
In the Matter of MARIE ZZ., Alleged to be a Permanently Neglected Child. Ulster County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Jeanne A., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.). In the Matter of Marie ZZ., Alleged to be the Child of a Mentally Ill Parent. Ulster County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Jeanne A., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.).
Kathryn S. Dell, Troy, for appellant. Daniel Gartenstein, Ulster County Department of Social Services, Kingston, for respondent. Theodore J. Stein, Woodstock, attorney for the child.
Kathryn S. Dell, Troy, for appellant.
Daniel Gartenstein, Ulster County Department of Social Services, Kingston, for respondent.
Theodore J. Stein, Woodstock, attorney for the child.
Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., ROSE, LYNCH, CLARK and AARONS, JJ.
Opinion
AARONS, J. Appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Ulster County (McGinty, J.), entered August 18, 2014, which, among other things, granted petitioner's applications, in two proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, to adjudicate Marie ZZ. to be a permanently neglected child and the child of a mentally ill parent, and terminated respondent's parental rights.
Respondent is the mother of a daughter (born in 2011). Shortly after the child's birth, she was removed from the care of both of her parents, and, in June 2012, Family Court adjudicated the child to be neglected. In February 2013, petitioner commenced the first of these proceedings against respondent seeking a finding of permanent neglect and a termination of her parental rights. Petitioner thereafter commenced the second of these proceedings seeking to terminate respondent's parental rights on the basis of mental illness. After a joint fact-finding hearing, in two separate orders, Family Court granted the petitions, terminated respondent's parental rights and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner. Respondent appeals. We affirm.
Respondent's sole contention on appeal is that Family Court erred by not appointing a guardian ad litem for her. Initially, we note that at no point during the underlying proceedings did respondent or her attorney request the appointment of a guardian ad litem (see Matter of Shawndalaya II., 31 A.D.3d 823, 825, 818 N.Y.S.2d 330 [2006], lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 714, 824 N.Y.S.2d 606, 857 N.E.2d 1137 [2006] ). In any event, despite respondent's mental illness, the record does not indicate that respondent was incapable of understanding the proceedings, defending her rights or assisting her counsel (see Matter of Philip R., 293 A.D.2d 547, 548, 740 N.Y.S.2d 421 [2002] ). In fact, respondent gave coherent testimony in response to the petitions' allegations, she understood the severity of her mental illness and the importance of taking medication, and she defended her interactions with the child during supervised visits. As such, viewing the record as a whole, we cannot conclude that Family Court erred in failing to sua sponte appoint a guardian ad litem for respondent (see Matter of Stephen UU. [Stephen VV.], 81 A.D.3d 1127, 1128, 916 N.Y.S.2d 673 [2011], lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 702, 2011 WL 2237365 [2011] ; Matter of Julie G. v. Yu–Jen G., 81 A.D.3d 1079, 1081, 917 N.Y.S.2d 355 [2011] ; Matter of Barbara Anne B., 51 A.D.3d 1018, 1019, 859 N.Y.S.2d 248 [2008] ).
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, without costs.
LAHTINEN, J.P., ROSE, LYNCH and CLARK, JJ., concur.