In re Christine K.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Christine K.

255 A.D.2d 513, 680 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12619

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 23, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 513 (In re Christine K.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Christine K., 255 A.D.2d 513, 680 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), dated February 27, 1997, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the appellant is presently and for the foreseeable future unable to care for her child by reason of mental illness, granted the petition to terminate her parental rights, and committed the child’s care to the Orange County Department of Social Services for the purpose of being the sole entity to consent to an adoption.

[514]*514Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The uncontroverted evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing indicated that the appellant mother has a long history of psychiatric treatment, has not responded to medication, believes that she can talk to the television and to angels, and thinks that the sun follows her around. A social worker who observed the child interact with the appellant testified that although the appellant cares for the child, the appellant exhibited inappropriate behavior when caring for the child. The court-appointed psychiatrist testified that the appellant was schizophrenic and would not be able to adequately care for the child in times of stress. Although he testified that her symptoms might improve in the future, he opined that her underlying psychological problems would continue and prevent her from adequately caring for the child. Accordingly, the Family Court did not err in finding clear and convincing evidence that the mother presently and for the foreseeable future would be unable to care for the child by reason of a mental illness (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c]; [6] [a]; Matter of Angel Guardian Home [Natasha C.] v Nereida C., 199 AD2d 500; Matter of Pauline Y., 193 AD2d 686). O’Brien, J. P., Florio, Mc-Ginity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), dated February 27, 1997, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the appellant is presently and for the foreseeable future unable to care for her child by reason of mental illness, granted the petition to terminate her parental rights, and committed the child’s care to the Orange County Department of Social Services for the purpose of being the sole entity to consent to an adoption.

[514]*514Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The uncontroverted evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing indicated that the appellant mother has a long history of psychiatric treatment, has not responded to medication, believes that she can talk to the television and to angels, and thinks that the sun follows her around. A social worker who observed the child interact with the appellant testified that although the appellant cares for the child, the appellant exhibited inappropriate behavior when caring for the child. The court-appointed psychiatrist testified that the appellant was schizophrenic and would not be able to adequately care for the child in times of stress. Although he testified that her symptoms might improve in the future, he opined that her underlying psychological problems would continue and prevent her from adequately caring for the child. Accordingly, the Family Court did not err in finding clear and convincing evidence that the mother presently and for the foreseeable future would be unable to care for the child by reason of a mental illness (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c]; [6] [a]; Matter of Angel Guardian Home [Natasha C.] v Nereida C., 199 AD2d 500; Matter of Pauline Y., 193 AD2d 686). O’Brien, J. P., Florio, Mc-Ginity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 513, 680 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-christine-k-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack