Matter of Donovan Jermaine R. (Jamie R.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Donovan Jermaine R. (Jamie R.)

123 A.D.3d 593, 999 N.Y.S.2d 57

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

DecidedDecember 16, 2014

Docket13794

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 593 (Matter of Donovan Jermaine R. (Jamie 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

Matter of Donovan Jermaine R. (Jamie R.), 123 A.D.3d 593, 999 N.Y.S.2d 57 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about October 21, 2013, to the extent it brings up for review a fact-finding order, same court and Judge, entered on or about August 16, 2013, which found that respondent father was unable to care for his child presently and for the foreseeable future due to mental illness, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Clear and convincing evidence established that respondent is presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness, to provide proper and adequate care for his child and that the child would be in danger of becoming a neglected child should he ever be placed in respondent’s care (Social Services Law § 384-b [4], [6]). Respondent has faced an almost lifelong battle with mental illness, as documented in his medical records and as testified to by the expert psychologist. He has spent the last several years in a psychiatric facility, his illness at times manifests in anger and the evidence established that he has no insight into his psychiatric problems and inability to care for a child (see Matter of Claudina Paradise Damaris B., 227 AD2d 135 [1st Dept 1996]; cf. Matter of Arielle Y., 61 AD3d 1061 [3d Dept 2009]). Contrary to respondent’s contention, it was unnecessary for the expert to have witnessed interaction between him and the child, whom respondent had not seen since his birth.

The expert’s reliance on appellant’s extensive medical records and clinical interview were a sufficient basis for the opinions proffered. Even if it were possible that someday respondent would be capable of providing adequate care for a child, such possibility does not warrant transferring the child to his care (see Matter of David Joseph G., 169 AD2d 439 [1st Dept 1991]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, Gische JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about October 21, 2013, to the extent it brings up for review a fact-finding order, same court and Judge, entered on or about August 16, 2013, which found that respondent father was unable to care for his child presently and for the foreseeable future due to mental illness, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Clear and convincing evidence established that respondent is presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness, to provide proper and adequate care for his child and that the child would be in danger of becoming a neglected child should he ever be placed in respondent’s care (Social Services Law § 384-b [4], [6]). Respondent has faced an almost lifelong battle with mental illness, as documented in his medical records and as testified to by the expert psychologist. He has spent the last several years in a psychiatric facility, his illness at times manifests in anger and the evidence established that he has no insight into his psychiatric problems and inability to care for a child (see Matter of Claudina Paradise Damaris B., 227 AD2d 135 [1st Dept 1996]; cf. Matter of Arielle Y., 61 AD3d 1061 [3d Dept 2009]). Contrary to respondent’s contention, it was unnecessary for the expert to have witnessed interaction between him and the child, whom respondent had not seen since his birth.

The expert’s reliance on appellant’s extensive medical records and clinical interview were a sufficient basis for the opinions proffered. Even if it were possible that someday respondent would be capable of providing adequate care for a child, such possibility does not warrant transferring the child to his care (see Matter of David Joseph G., 169 AD2d 439 [1st Dept 1991]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, Gische JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 593, 999 N.Y.S.2d 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-donovan-jermaine-r-jamie-r-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack