Matter of Priseten T. (Miatta T.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Priseten T. (Miatta T.)

2017 NY Slip Op 937, 147 A.D.3d 458, 46 N.Y.S.3d 593

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2017

Docket3019

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 937 (Matter of Priseten T. (Miatta T.)) 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 Priseten T. (Miatta T.), 2017 NY Slip Op 937, 147 A.D.3d 458, 46 N.Y.S.3d 593 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Emily M. Olshansky, J.), entered on or about November 5, 2015, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent mother suffers from a mental illness within the meaning of the Social Services Law, terminated her parental rights to the subject child and committed custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Clear and convincing evidence, including the uncontroverted *459 expert testimony of the court-appointed psychologist who testified that respondent suffers from schizophrenia, supports the determination that she is presently and for the foreseeable future unable to provide proper and adequate care for the child and that the child would be in danger of becoming a neglected child if he were placed in the mother’s care (Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c]; [6] [a]).

Petitioner submitted, among other things, the psychology expert’s detailed report, which was prepared after an interview with the mother and a review of her mental health records (see Matter of Isis S.C. [Doreen S.], 98 AD3d 905, 905-906 [1st Dept 2012]). The expert noted respondent’s schizophrenia diagnosis, her limited insight into her condition, her recurrent hospitalizations, and her inconsistent treatment (see Matter of Akiko Miami-Lyn A. [Ann Althea A.], 139 AD3d 617 [1st Dept 2016]). In addition, respondent’s testimony demonstrated that she was unable to acknowledge the existence of her mental illness and did not believe that she needed medication (see Matter of Mar De Luz R. [Luz R.], 95 AD3d 423 [1st Dept 2012]).

Contrary to respondent’s contention, the court did not err in declining to conduct a dispositional hearing prior to finding that termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child (see Matter of Joyce T, 65 NY2d 39, 46 [1985]; Matter of Ashanti A., 56 AD3d 373, 373-374 [1st Dept 2008]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Emily M. Olshansky, J.), entered on or about November 5, 2015, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent mother suffers from a mental illness within the meaning of the Social Services Law, terminated her parental rights to the subject child and committed custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Clear and convincing evidence, including the uncontroverted *459 expert testimony of the court-appointed psychologist who testified that respondent suffers from schizophrenia, supports the determination that she is presently and for the foreseeable future unable to provide proper and adequate care for the child and that the child would be in danger of becoming a neglected child if he were placed in the mother’s care (Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c]; [6] [a]).

Petitioner submitted, among other things, the psychology expert’s detailed report, which was prepared after an interview with the mother and a review of her mental health records (see Matter of Isis S.C. [Doreen S.], 98 AD3d 905, 905-906 [1st Dept 2012]). The expert noted respondent’s schizophrenia diagnosis, her limited insight into her condition, her recurrent hospitalizations, and her inconsistent treatment (see Matter of Akiko Miami-Lyn A. [Ann Althea A.], 139 AD3d 617 [1st Dept 2016]). In addition, respondent’s testimony demonstrated that she was unable to acknowledge the existence of her mental illness and did not believe that she needed medication (see Matter of Mar De Luz R. [Luz R.], 95 AD3d 423 [1st Dept 2012]).

Contrary to respondent’s contention, the court did not err in declining to conduct a dispositional hearing prior to finding that termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child (see Matter of Joyce T, 65 NY2d 39, 46 [1985]; Matter of Ashanti A., 56 AD3d 373, 373-374 [1st Dept 2008]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 937, 147 A.D.3d 458, 46 N.Y.S.3d 593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-priseten-t-miatta-t-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack