Opinion
2014-10-3
In the Matter of STAR C. Onondaga County Department of Social Services, Petitioner–Respondent; Bronson T., Respondent–Appellant.
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Rupak R. Shah of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant. Gordon J. Cuffy, County Attorney, Syracuse (Benjamin Yaus of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent.
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Rupak R. Shah of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant. Gordon J. Cuffy, County Attorney, Syracuse (Benjamin Yaus of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent.
Theodore W. Stenuf, Attorney for the Child, Minoa.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, VALENTINO, WHALEN AND DeJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Respondent father appeals from an order terminating his parental rights with respect to his daughter on the ground of mental illness. We conclude that petitioner met its burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the father is “presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness ..., to provide proper and adequate care for [the] child” (Social Services Law § 384–b [4][c]; see Matter of Christopher B., Jr. [Christopher B., Sr.], 104 A.D.3d 1188, 1188, 960 N.Y.S.2d 787; Matter of Alberto C. [Tibet H.], 96 A.D.3d 1487, 1488, 946 N.Y.S.2d 517, lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 813, 2012 WL 4936378). Contrary to the father's contention, petitioner presented clear and convincing evidence establishing that he is presently suffering from a mental illness that “is manifested by a disorder or disturbance in behavior, feeling, thinking or judgment to such an extent that if such child were placed in ... the custody of the [father], the child would be in danger of becoming a neglected child” (§ 384–b [6][a]; see Matter of Destiny V. [Lynette V.], 106 A.D.3d 1495, 1495, 966 N.Y.S.2d 306). The psychologist appointed by Family Court testified that the father has schizophrenia, which caused him to experience “intermittent and persistent auditory hallucinations.” According to the psychologist, the hallucinations caused the father to become “grossly disorganized,” combative, and “agitated,” which interfered with his ability to concentrate and care for the child. Further, the father failed to take his medication as prescribed, thereby exacerbating his symptoms ( see generally Matter of Roman E.A. [Danielle M.] [Appeal No. 2], 107 A.D.3d 1455, 1456, 966 N.Y.S.2d 639). The psychologist's testimony was supported by the testimony of the father's caseworker and a counselor who supervised his visitation with the child ( see e.g. Matter of Corey UU. [Donna UU.], 85 A.D.3d 1255, 1257–1258, 924 N.Y.S.2d 214, lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 708, 2011 WL 4027481; Matter of Devonte M.T. [Leroy T.], 79 A.D.3d 1818, 1818–1819, 913 N.Y.S.2d 457). Both witnesses testified that the father lacked the ability to provide adequate care for the child and that, as a result of his inability to concentrate, he failed to learn those skills during the course of his supervised visitation and parenting classes ( see Devonte M.T., 79 A.D.3d at 1818–1819, 913 N.Y.S.2d 457; see also Christopher B., Jr., 104 A.D.3d at 1188, 960 N.Y.S.2d 787).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.