Matter of Shae Tylasia I.M. (Lisa Anne G.)

Matter of Shae Tylasia I.M. v Lisa Anne G. 2011 NY Slip Op 08195 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
Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Renwick, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
6003

[*1]In re Shae Tylasia I.M., A Dependent Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc.,

and

Lisa Anne G., etc., Respondent-Appellant, The New York Foundling Hospital, Petitioner-Respondent.




Douglas H. Reiniger, New York, for appellant.
Law Office of Quinlan and Fields, Hawthorne (Daniel
Gartenstein of counsel), for respondent.
Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel P.C., Syosset (Randall S.
Carmel of counsel), attorney for the child.

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Gayle P. Roberts, J.), entered on or about April 9, 2008, which, upon a finding of mental retardation, terminated the respondent mother's parental rights to the subject child, and committed custody and guardianship to petitioner agency and the Administration for Children's Services, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court-appointed psychiatrist provided clear and convincing evidence that the child was in danger of being neglected due to the mother's mental retardation (Social Services Law § 384-b[6][b][c]; Matter of Erica D. [Maria D.], 80 AD3d 423, 424 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 708 [2011]). Although the mother completed numerous programs to enhance her parenting and other skills, the psychiatrist noted that there was no improvement in her ability to understand the child's special needs and properly care for the child.

Under these circumstances, the court did not improvidently decline to conduct a dispositional hearing, which the mother concedes was not required (see Matter of Isiah J. [Janice [*2]J.], 82 AD3d 651, 652 [2011]). There was no evidence that post-termination visitation, if permitted, would be in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Corinthian Marie S., 297 AD2d 382 [2002]).

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

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 15, 2011

CLERK