Matter of Marlyn J'ace A. (Lynora A.)

Matter of Marlyn J'ace A. (Lynora A.) 2012 NY Slip Op 09173 Decided on December 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 December 27, 2012
Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels, Clark, JJ.
8903

[*1]In re Marlyn J'ace A., A Dependent Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc.,

and

Lynora A., Respondent-Appellant, Edwin Gould Services for Children and Families, Petitioner-Respondent.




Israel P. Inyama, New York, for appellant.
John R. Eyerman, New York, for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Selene
D'Alessio of counsel), attorney for the child.

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Jeanette Ruiz, J.), entered on or about August 4, 2011, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent mother suffers from a mental illness, terminated her 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.

Clear and convincing evidence supports the determination that respondent, by reason of mental illness, is presently and for the foreseeable future unable to provide proper and adequate care for her child (see Social Services Law § 384-b[4][c]; [6][a]). The court-appointed expert testified that respondent suffers from schizophrenia, non-differentiated type with paranoid features, and that this condition, which was manifest during the expert's interview with respondent, prevents her from adequately caring for the child presently and for the foreseeable future. The expert also testified that respondent refuses treatment and is noncompliant with medication (see Matter of Timothy Reynaldo L.M. [Frances M.], 89 AD3d 542 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 806 [2012]). Respondent did not present any evidence to rebut the expert's [*2]testimony (see Matter of Isis S.C. [Doreen S.], 98 AD3d 905, 906 [1st Dept 2012]).

We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

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

ENTERED: DECEMBER 27, 2012

CLERK