In re Denise R.

249 A.D.2d 400, 671 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3923
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 13, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 400 (In re Denise R.) 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 Denise R., 249 A.D.2d 400, 671 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3923 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate the mother’s parental rights by reason of her mental illness, the mother appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Bogacz, J.), entered August 30, 1996, which, after a fact-finding hearing, terminated her parental rights and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to the Commissioner of Social Services and the petitioning agency, St. Christopher-Ottilie.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioning agency established by clear and convincing evidence that the mother is unable to properly and adequately care for her child, at present or in the foreseeable future, by reason of mental illness (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c]; Matter of Hime Y., 52 NY2d 242). The psychiatrist from Mental Health Services testified that based on his examination of the mother and his review of her extensive psychiatric hospitalization records, he diagnosed the mother as suffering from a psycho-affective disorder, with additional diagnoses of cocaine and marihuana dependency in remission and personality disorder with immature and dependency features. The mother’s disorder was long-standing and she had a history of institutionalization which was compounded by noncompliance with medication and treatment. This evidence is convincing proof of the mother’s inability to care for her child, now and in the foreseeable future (see, Matter of Michelle H., 228 AD2d 440; Matter of Sunja S., 175 AD2d 132; Matter of Denise Emily K, 154 AD2d 596). Copertino, J. P., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Related

In re Joseph Lawrence S.
56 A.D.2d 785 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re Nina D. St. Christopher-Ottilie
6 A.D.3d 702 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re Danielle C.
6 A.D.3d 530 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re Eric X.J.
4 A.D.3d 528 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re Erica D.
294 A.D.2d 435 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re Charles Emanuel M.
293 A.D.2d 477 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Harlem Dowling-Westside Center for Children & Family Services ex rel. Ebony Shaquiera C. v. Marion L. C.
264 A.D.2d 845 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
249 A.D.2d 400, 671 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-denise-r-nyappdiv-1998.