Opinion
1264 Dkt. No. B7651/18 Case No. 2022–04974
12-19-2023
In the MATTER OF EDWARD E. M., IV, a Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Edward M., III, Respondent–Appellant, v. Good Shepherd Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, for appellant. Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, for respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Amy Hausknecht of counsel), attorney for the child.
Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, for appellant.
Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, for respondent.
Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Amy Hausknecht of counsel), attorney for the child.
Singh, J.P., Friedman, Gesmer, Shulman, O'Neill Levy, JJ.
Order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper), Family Court, New York County (Valerie A. Pels, J.), entered on or about November 4, 2022, which, after a hearing, determined that respondent father suffers from mental illness and intellectual disability as defined in Social Services Law § 384–b, terminated his parental rights to the subject child, and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner presented uncontroverted expert testimony from a psychologist that the father suffers from, among other things, a combination of longstanding, chronic moderate bipolar disorder, and incurable mild intellectual disability. The evidence further showed that he does not understand the extent of his mental illness, and, at present and for the foreseeable future, that he has a limited ability to understand and execute the steps necessary to provide proper and adequate care for the child (see Social Services Law § 384–b[4][c], [6][b] ; Matter of Genesis S. [Irene Elizabeth S.], 70 A.D.3d 570, 895 N.Y.S.2d 85 [1st Dept. 2010] ; Matter of Erica D. [Maria D.], 80 A.D.3d 423, 424, 915 N.Y.S.2d 46 [1st Dept. 2011], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 708, 2011 WL 1160593 [2011] ).
Contrary to the father's argument, raised for the first time on appeal, the psychologist's evaluation, which took place approximately two years prior to commencement of testimony, was not stale, and the father failed to show that more updated information would warrant a different outcome (see Matter of Brianna K.R. [Bernard R.], 199 A.D.3d 500, 501–502, 154 N.Y.S.3d 422 [1st Dept. 2021], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 901, 2022 WL 806741 [2022] ).
We have considered the father's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.