Opinion
11-13-2015
In the Matter of NADYA S. Erie County Department of Social Services, Petitioner–Respondent; Brauna S., Respondent–Appellant.
William D. Broderick, Jr., Elma, for Respondent–Appellant. Joseph T. Jarzembek, Buffalo, for Petitioner–Respondent. David C. Schopp, Attorney for the Child, The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Charles D. Halvorsen of Counsel).
William D. Broderick, Jr., Elma, for Respondent–Appellant.
Joseph T. Jarzembek, Buffalo, for Petitioner–Respondent.David C. Schopp, Attorney for the Child, The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Charles D. Halvorsen of Counsel).
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, WHALEN, AND DeJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking to terminate the parental rights of respondent mother with respect to her daughter on the grounds of, inter alia, mental illness (see Social Services Law § 384–b [4 ][c] ). We note at the outset that the mother's contention that Family Court erred in admitting in evidence the records of a certain agency is moot inasmuch as those records related only to the petition alleging that the child was a permanently neglected child (see § 384–b [4 ][d] ), which the court dismissed with prejudice. To the extent that the mother contends that other records were improperly admitted in evidence, those records are not part of the stipulated record on appeal, and thus we have not considered that contention (see Matter of Santoshia L., 202 A.D.2d 1027, 1028, 609 N.Y.S.2d 724 ).
The mother further contends that her rights were violated by the admission of the testimony of the court-appointed psychologist because the psychological evaluation was conducted in English and without the benefit of a Spanish interpreter. She also contends that the methodology utilized by the psychologist to determine that her comprehension of the English language was sufficient to proceed with the evaluation in English should have been subject to a Frye hearing. The mother failed to object to the testimony of the psychologist, however, and thus failed to preserve those contentions for our review (see generally Matter of Kaylene S. [Brauna S.], 101 A.D.3d 1648, 1648, 956 N.Y.S.2d 738, lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 852, 2013 WL 1760947 ). We note with respect to the first contention that, in any event, the record establishes that the mother advised the psychologist that she was comfortable proceeding with the evaluation using English when he discussed with her whether the assessments should be conducted in English or Spanish, and that two prior psychological evaluations had been conducted in English.
Contrary to the contention of the mother, the court properly determined that petitioner met its burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that she is presently and for the foreseeable future unable to provide proper and adequate care for the child by reason of mental illness, particularly severe cognitive deficits and certain personality traits, none of which is treatable (see Matter of Zachary R. [Duane R.], 118 A.D.3d 1479, 1480, 988 N.Y.S.2d 810 ; Kaylene S., 101 A.D.3d at 1648, 956 N.Y.S.2d 738 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.