Matter of Mar De Luz R. (Luz R.)

Annotate this Case
Matter of Matter of Mar De Luz R. (Luz R.) 2012 NY Slip Op 03382 Decided on May 1, 2012 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 May 1, 2012
Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Renwick, Richter, JJ.
7521

[*1]In re Mar De Luz R., and Another, Dependent Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc.,

and

Luz R., Respondent-Appellant, Mercyfirst, et al., Petitioners-Respondents.




Tennille M. Tatum-Evans, New York, for appellant.
Warren & Warren, P.C., Brooklyn (Ira L. Eras of counsel), for
respondents.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Diane
Pazar of counsel), attorney for the children.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about February 22, 2011, which, upon a finding of mental illness, terminated respondent mother's parental rights and committed the custody and guardianship of the subject children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court's determination that respondent's untreated mental illness renders her unable, at present and for the foreseeable future, to provide proper and adequate care for the subject children, one of whom has special needs, was supported by clear and convincing evidence (Social Services Law § 384-b[3][g][i]). The court properly permitted the court-appointed psychologist to testify as to respondent's mental illness, pursuant to the statute (see Social Services Law § 384-b[4][c], [6][c]; see e.g. Matter of Isaiah J. [Janice J.], 82 AD3d 651 [2011]; Matter of Robert K., 56 AD3d 353 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 704 [2009]; Matter of Nadaniel Jackie P., 35 AD3d 305 [2006]). Moreover, respondent's testimony demonstrated that she was [*2]unable to acknowledge the existence of her mental illness and that she did not believe her prescribed medication was needed to manage her condition.

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

ENTERED: MAY 1, 2012

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.