Opinion
2013-03-21
In re THADDEUS JACOB C., also known as Baby Boy M., A Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Tanya K.M., Respondent–Appellant, Leake & Watts Services, Inc., Petitioner–Respondent.
Tennille M. Tatum–Evans, New York, for appellant. Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for respondent.
Tennille M. Tatum–Evans, New York, for appellant. Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for respondent.
Andrew J. Baer, New York, attorney for the child.
TOM, J.P., MAZZARELLI, SAXE, MOSKOWITZ, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Anne–Marie Jolly, J.), entered on or about April 5, 2011, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent-appellant mother suffers from a mental illness, terminated her parental rights to the subject child and committed custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The uncontroverted medical evidence provided clear and convincing evidence that respondent is presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness, to provide proper and adequate care for the child ( seeSocial Services Law § 384–b[4][c], [6][a]; Matter of Joyce T., 65 N.Y.2d 39, 47–48, 489 N.Y.S.2d 705, 478 N.E.2d 1306 [1985] ).The court-appointed expert testified that respondent suffers from schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, and personality disorder NOS (not otherwise specified) with borderline narcissistic and antisocial features, and that this prevents her from adequately caring for the child presently and for the foreseeable future ( see Matter of Isis S.C. [Doreen S.], 98 A.D.3d 905, 906, 950 N.Y.S.2d 902 [1st Dept. 2012] ). Respondent's testimony confirmed that she lacked insight into the nature and extent of her mental illness.
A dispositional hearing was not necessary to find that termination of respondent's parental rights is in the best interests of the child ( see Matter of Leomia Louise C., 41 A.D.3d 249, 836 N.Y.S.2d 874 [1st Dept. 2007] ).
The court properly denied posttermination visitation to respondent ( see Matter of Hailey ZZ. [Ricky ZZ.], 19 N.Y.3d 422, 948 N.Y.S.2d 846, 972 N.E.2d 87 [2012] ).