Matter of Mitchell Randell K.

Matter of Mitchell Randell K. 2007 NY Slip Op 04701 [41 AD3d 119] Decided on June 5, 2007 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 5, 2007
Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Buckley, Kavanagh, JJ.
1247 -

[*1]1247AIn re Mitchell Randell K., etc., and Another, Dependent Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Jacqueline Inez C., Respondent-Appellant, St. Christopher's, Inc., et al., Petitioners-Respondents.




Louise Belulovich, New York, for appellant.
Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of
counsel), for The Children's Aid Society, substituted for St.
Christopher's, Inc., respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith
Waksberg of counsel), and Proskauer Rose LLP, New York
(Kenneth E. Aldous of counsel), Law Guardian.

Orders of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about August 30 and September 7, 2005, which, after a fact-finding hearing, terminated respondent mother's parental rights to the two subject children and transferred their custody and guardianship to the Children's Aid Society and petitioner Commissioner for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Expert testimony established by clear and convincing evidence that respondent is presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness, to provide proper and adequate care for her children (Social Services Law § 384-b[4][c]; see Matter of Sarah-Beth H., 34 AD3d 242 [2006]; Matter of Antonio Tyrone B., 298 AD2d 128 [2002]). Indeed, respondent has suffered from severe mental illness for approximately 15 years, characterized by a recurring cycle of psychiatric hospitalizations and failure to take prescribed medication. Not only has she been unable to function meaningfully for almost her entire adult life, but she is incapable of caring adequately for her children at the present time, and there is no prospect that she will be able to do so in the foreseeable future. [*2]

We have considered respondent's arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JUNE 5, 2007

CLERK