Matter of Timothy Reynaldo L. M. (Frances M.)

Matter of Timothy Reynaldo L. M. v Frances M. 2011 NY Slip Op 08214 Decided on November 15, 2011 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 November 15, 2011
Andrias, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse, Freedman, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. 6040-
6041

[*1]In re Timothy Reynaldo L. M., A Dependent Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc.,

and

Frances M., et al., Respondents-Appellants, The Children's Aid Society, Petitioner-Respondent.




Lisa H. Blitman, New York, for Frances M., appellant.
John J. Marafino, Mount Vernon, for Reynaldo L., appellant.
Rosin Steinhagen Mendal, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of
counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Marcia
Egger of counsel), attorney for the child.

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Karen I. Lupuloff, J.), entered on or about May 18, 2009, which, upon a finding that respondent mother suffered from mental illness and that respondent father suffered from mental retardation, terminated respondents' parental rights to the subject child and committed custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding that the mother suffered from mental illness was supported by clear and convincing evidence (see Social Services Law § 384-b[4][c], [6][a]). The court-appointed psychologist conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the mother and determined that the mother's mental illness, and her reluctance to take medication for her condition, rendered her incapable of caring for the child presently and for the foreseeable future (see Matter of Roberto A. [Altagracia A.], 73 AD3d 501 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 703 [2010]; Matter of Victoria Lauren W., 15 AD3d 165 [2005]).

Clear and convincing evidence, including the psychologist's testimony, also demonstrated that the father is unable, at present and for the foreseeable future, to provide proper and adequate care for the subject child by reason of his mental retardation, which originated during his developmental period (see Social Services Law § 384—b[4][c], [6][b]; Matter of Jasmine Pauline M., 62 AD3d 483 [2009]).

We have considered respondents' remaining contentions and find them unavailing. [*2]

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

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 15, 2011

CLERK