Matter of Julius H. (Beatrice P.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Julius H. (Beatrice P.)

120 A.D.3d 1347, 992 N.Y.S.2d 556

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

DecidedSeptember 17, 2014

DocketDocket No. B-4904-12

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 120 A.D.3d 1347 (Matter of Julius H. (Beatrice P.)) 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 Julius H. (Beatrice P.), 120 A.D.3d 1347, 992 N.Y.S.2d 556 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of mental illness, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Orange County (Currier Woods, J.), dated June 26, 2013, as, after a fact-finding hearing, found that she is presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness, to provide proper and adequate care for the subject child, terminated her parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the subject child to the Orange County Department of Social Services for purposes of adoption.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly found that there was clear and convincing evidence that the mother is presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness, to provide proper and adequate care for the subject child (see Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c]). A forensic psychiatrist, who interviewed the mother and reviewed records, including medical records, testified that the mother had a long history of psychiatric problems and had paranoid personality disorder and borderline personality disorder. That forensic psychiatrist made statements, at the hearing and in his reports, tending to show that, if the child were returned to the mother, the child would be at risk of being neglected due to the nature of the mother’s illness (see Matter of Christina L.N. [Louica J.], 113 AD3d 777, 777-778 [2014]; Matter of Alexander James R., 48 AD3d 820, 820-821 [2008]; Matter of Nina D., 6 AD3d 702, 703 [2004]; Matter of Laura D., 270 AD2d 260, 261 [2000]). Such evidence is sufficient to support the Family Court’s determination that the mother is presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness, to provide proper and adequate care for the subject child (see Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c]).

Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Austin and Duffy, 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 on the ground of mental illness, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Orange County (Currier Woods, J.), dated June 26, 2013, as, after a fact-finding hearing, found that she is presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness, to provide proper and adequate care for the subject child, terminated her parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the subject child to the Orange County Department of Social Services for purposes of adoption.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly found that there was clear and convincing evidence that the mother is presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness, to provide proper and adequate care for the subject child (see Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c]). A forensic psychiatrist, who interviewed the mother and reviewed records, including medical records, testified that the mother had a long history of psychiatric problems and had paranoid personality disorder and borderline personality disorder. That forensic psychiatrist made statements, at the hearing and in his reports, tending to show that, if the child were returned to the mother, the child would be at risk of being neglected due to the nature of the mother’s illness (see Matter of Christina L.N. [Louica J.], 113 AD3d 777, 777-778 [2014]; Matter of Alexander James R., 48 AD3d 820, 820-821 [2008]; Matter of Nina D., 6 AD3d 702, 703 [2004]; Matter of Laura D., 270 AD2d 260, 261 [2000]). Such evidence is sufficient to support the Family Court’s determination that the mother is presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness, to provide proper and adequate care for the subject child (see Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c]).

Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Austin and Duffy, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.3d 1347, 992 N.Y.S.2d 556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-julius-h-beatrice-p-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack