Home/New York Court of Appeals/In Re the Guardianship & Custody of Dochingozi B.

In Re the Guardianship & Custody of Dochingozi B.

439 N.E.2d 872, 57 N.Y.2d 641, 454 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3594
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJuly 2, 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 439 N.E.2d 872 (In Re the Guardianship & Custody of Dochingozi B.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re the Guardianship & Custody of Dochingozi B., 439 N.E.2d 872, 57 N.Y.2d 641, 454 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3594 (N.Y. 1982).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to the Family Court, New York County, for further proceedings on the petition.

The record in this proceeding to terminate parental rights does not support the finding that the natural mother is “presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness * * * to provide proper and adequate care” for her child (Social Services Law, § 384-b, subd 4, par [c]). The quality and quantity of the psychiatric testimony was insufficient to sdtisfy the requirement of “strict adherence to that statutory mandate” (Matter of Daniel A. D., 49 NY2d 788, 790) requiring production of “clear and convincing proof” (Social Services Law, § 384-b, *643 subd 3, par [g]) of a parent’s present and future inability to care for his Or her child because of mental illness. The psychiatric examination was brief and occurred approximately nine months prior to the hearing. There was no articulated basis for the testimony concerning the extent of the mother’s illness and its manifestations. At most, the testimony related to matters concerning her past condition. The inferences as to future condition apparently drawn from the mother’s past behavior are not adequately supported so as to satisfy the statutory test and, consequently, terminating her parental rights was improper.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum; Judge Gabrielli concurs in result only.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Related

Matter of Juliet W. (Amy W.)
2024 NY Slip Op 05690 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
In re Nicholas B.
103 A.D.3d 480 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
B., DARIUS, MTR. OF
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011
In re Darius B.
90 A.D.3d 1510 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
In re Loretta C.
32 A.D.3d 764 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Matter of Jasmine R.
2005 NY Slip Op 25254 (Queens Family Court, 2005)
In re Jasmine R.
8 Misc. 3d 904 (NYC Family Court, 2005)
In re Tatesha M.G. Forestdale, Inc.
4 A.D.3d 429 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re Dylan K.
269 A.D.2d 826 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re Edon F. Angel Guardian Home
256 A.D.2d 577 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re Erica J.
154 A.D.2d 595 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
In re Bates
120 A.D.2d 731 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
In re Richardson
65 N.Y. 39 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
439 N.E.2d 872, 57 N.Y.2d 641, 454 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-guardianship-custody-of-dochingozi-b-ny-1982.