Opinion
12-27-2023
In the MATTER OF LAYLA S. (Anonymous). Orange County Department of Social Services, respondent; v. Alice Y. (Anonymous), etc., appellant.
Richard B. Golden, County Attorney, Goshen, NY (Peter R. Schwarz of counsel), for respondent. Keith Geoffrey Ingber, Thompson Ridge, NY, attorney for the child.
Samuel Coe, White Plains, NY, for appellant.
Richard B. Golden, County Attorney, Goshen, NY (Peter R. Schwarz of counsel), for respondent.
Keith Geoffrey Ingber, Thompson Ridge, NY, attorney for the child.
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, HELEN VOUTSINAS, JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, the mother appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Orange County (Christine P. Krahulik, J.), dated November 29, 2022. The order of fact-finding and disposition, after a hearing, found that the mother was presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness and intellectual disability, to provide proper and adequate care for the subject child, terminated her parental rights to the subject child, and transferred guardianship and custody of the subject child to the petitioner for the purpose of adoption.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In February 2022, the petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b to terminate the mother’s parental rights to the subject child on the grounds of mental illness and intellectual disability. Following a hearing, the Family Court found that the mother was presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness and intellectual disability, to provide proper and adequate care for the child, terminated the mother’s parental rights to the child, and transferred guardianship and custody of the child to the petitioner for the purpose of adoption. The mother appeals.
The mother’s contention that the Family Court erred in allowing the petitioner’s expert in forensic psychiatry to testify about and rely upon out-of-court statements from collateral sources in forming his opinion is largely unpreserved for appellate review (see Matter of Sebastian Y. [Alice Y.], 214 A.D.3d 893, 894, 185 N.Y.S.3d 297; Matter of Skylar P.J. [Kerry M.T.], 186 A.D.3d 1687, 1688, 129 N.Y.S.3d 859). Although the court improperly overruled the sole objection to that expert’s testimony, which was lodged by the mother’s attorney in response to a specific question asked by the attorney for the child during her cross-examination, that error was harmless (see Matter of Bruce P., 138 A.D.3d 864, 865–866, 29 N.Y.S.3d 536; see also Matter of Omar B., 175 A.D.2d 834, 834, 573 N.Y.S.2d 301). Under the circumstances, the evidence presented at the hearing established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the mother was presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness and intellectual disability, to provide proper and adequate care for the child (see Social Services Law § 384–b[4][c]; Matter of Sebastian Y. [Alice Y.J, 214 A.D.3d at 894, 185 N.Y.S.3d 297; Matter of Bruce P., 138 A.D.3d at 866, 29 N.Y.S.3d 536).
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., MALTESE, VOUTSINAS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.