Summary
dismissing action for termination of parental rights concerning child who attained age of majority
Summary of this case from Woosley v. U.S. Dist. CourtOpinion
1257 CAF 13-00988
11-21-2014
In the Matter of DELIA S., Jesus S. and Skylett A. Erie County Department of Social Services, Petitioner–Respondent; v. Desiree S., Respondent–Appellant.
The Abbatoy Law Firm, PLLC, Rochester (David M. Abbatoy, Jr., of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant. Joseph T. Jarzembek, Buffalo, for Petitioner–Respondent. David C. Schopp, Attorney for the Children, The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Charles D. Halvorsen of Counsel). Sharon Anscombe Osgood, Attorney for the Child, Buffalo.
The Abbatoy Law Firm, PLLC, Rochester (David M. Abbatoy, Jr., of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant.
Joseph T. Jarzembek, Buffalo, for Petitioner–Respondent.
David C. Schopp, Attorney for the Children, The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Charles D. Halvorsen of Counsel).
Sharon Anscombe Osgood, Attorney for the Child, Buffalo.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, and VALENTINO, JJ.
Opinion MEMORANDUM:
Respondent mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights with respect to the subject children on the ground of mental illness. We dismiss as moot the appeal from the order insofar as it concerns the mother's older child because she has attained the age of majority (see Matter of Anthony M., 56 A.D.3d 1124, 1124, 867 N.Y.S.2d 590, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 702, 876 N.Y.S.2d 349, 904 N.E.2d 504 ). Contrary to the mother's contention, petitioner met its burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the mother is “presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness ..., to provide proper and adequate care for” the remaining subject children (Social Services Law § 384–b [4 ][c]; see § 384–b [6 ] [a]; Matter of Christopher B., Jr. [Christopher B., Sr.], 104 A.D.3d 1188, 1188, 960 N.Y.S.2d 787 ). The testimony of petitioner's witnesses, including a psychologist, “established that the [mother] was so disturbed in [her] behavior, feeling, thinking and judgment that, if the [remaining subject children] were returned to [her] custody, [they] would be in danger of becoming” neglected children (Christopher B., Jr., 104 A.D.3d at 1188, 960 N.Y.S.2d 787 ; see § 384–b [6 ][a] ).
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal insofar as it concerns respondent's older child is unanimously dismissed and the order is affirmed without costs.