Matter of Isis S.C. (Doreen S.)

Matter of Matter of Isis S.C. (Doreen S.) 2012 NY Slip Op 06367 Decided on September 27, 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 September 27, 2012
Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Abdus-Salaam, Manzanet-Daniels, Román, JJ.
8106

[*1]In re Isis S.C., A Dependant Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc.,

and

Doreen S., Respondent-Appellant, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent.




Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Susan B.
Eisner of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Diane
Pazar of counsel), attorney for the child.

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.), entered on or about January 5, 2010, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent mother suffers from a mental illness, terminated her parental rights to the subject child and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner agency presented clear and convincing evidence that respondent is presently and for the foreseeable future unable to provide proper and adequate care for her child by reason of mental illness (see Social Services Law § 384-b[4][c], [6][a]). The agency's submissions included unrebutted expert testimony that respondent suffers from a long-standing schizoaffective disorder and major depression that renders her unable to care for the special-needs child, as well as the expert's detailed report, which was prepared after lengthy interviews with respondent and review of her mental health records (see Matter of Michele Amanda N. [Elizabeth N.], 93 AD3d 610, 611 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Paulidia Antonis R. [Lidia R.], 93 AD3d 502 [1st Dept 2012]). Although the expert stated that respondent's mental condition was [*2]presently "in remission," he cited respondent's long-standing pattern of intermittent compliance with medication and treatment, which rendered it "highly likely" that her symptoms would return and she would again become delusional.

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

ENTERED: SEPTEMBER 27, 2012

CLERK