From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lidia R. v. Episcopal Soc. Servs. (In re Antonis R.)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 15, 2012
93 A.D.3d 502 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-03-15

In re Paulidia ANTONIS R., etc.,A Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc.,Lidia R., etc., Respondent–Appellant,Episcopal Social Services, Petitioner–Respondent.

Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant. Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for respondent.


Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant. Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for respondent. Randall S. Carmel, Syosset, attorney for the child.MAZZARELLI, J.P., FRIEDMAN, RICHTER, ABDUS–SALAAM, JJ.

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about November 9, 2010, which, upon a finding of mental illness, terminated respondent mother's parental rights and committed custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Administration for Children's Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding that respondent is mentally ill within the meaning of Social Services Law § 384–b(4)(c) and § 384–b(6)(a) is supported by clear and convincing evidence. The agency presented testimony from two psychologists who, after reviewing respondent's medical records and interviewing her, found that she suffers from schizoaffective disorder which affects her judgment and ability to parent. Her illness renders her incapable of caring for the child presently and for the foreseeable future ( see Matter of Phajja Jada S. [ Toenor Ann S.], 86 A.D.3d 438, 927 N.Y.S.2d 626 [2011], lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 716, 2011 WL 5526454 [2011] ).

Although respondent's expert did not agree with the diagnosis, the court found that her expert, who had not thoroughly considered respondent's extensive medical records, lacked credibility. There is no basis for disturbing this credibility determination, which is entitled to deference ( see Matter of Kathleen OO., 232 A.D.2d 784, 649 N.Y.S.2d 193 [1996] ) .

We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Lidia R. v. Episcopal Soc. Servs. (In re Antonis R.)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 15, 2012
93 A.D.3d 502 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Lidia R. v. Episcopal Soc. Servs. (In re Antonis R.)

Case Details

Full title:In re Paulidia ANTONIS R., etc.,A Dependent Child Under the Age of…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 15, 2012

Citations

93 A.D.3d 502 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
93 A.D.3d 502
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 1863