In re Robert XX.
Aрpeal from an order of the Family Court of Greene County (Pulver, Jr., J.), entered June 23, 2000, which granted petitioner’s applicаtion, in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, to adjudicate respondent’s child to be, inter alia, thе child of a mentally ill parent, and terminated respondent’s parental rights.
Respondent is the mother of Robert XX. (born in 1994) who wаs removed from respondent’s home by petitioner on October 15, 1997. In November 1997, Family Court found the child to be neglected, ordered foster care for a 12-month period, and directed respondent to, inter alia, cooperate with petitioner to improve her parenting skills, to undergo mental health and psychiatric evaluation and to follow any subsequent recommendations. In January 2000, petitioner commenced the instant proceeding to terminate respondent’s parental rights, alleging that, as a result of mental illness, respondent was, presently and in the foreseeable future, unablе to care for the child and that the child was permanently neglected because of respondent’s failure to рlan for the child’s future. Following a
We affirm. Initially, we reject respondent’s contention that рetitioner failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that she was, presently and for the foreseeable future, incapable of providing proper and adequate care for the child due to mental illness. Thе record reveals that since November 1997, respondent has been diagnosed as being psychotic with a personality disorder. The psychiatrist who made this diagnosis and treated respondent from November 1997 to May 1998 testified that respondent refused to acknowledge the existence of her illness, which resulted in her refusal to take prescribed medication during this еntire period and required that she be hospitalized on at least three occasions. This psychiatrist concluded that respondent’s failure to acknowledge and address her mental illness hindered any attempt on her part to strengthen her relationship with the child.
Additionally, the record reveals that the court-appointed psychologist examined respondent on at least five occasions between July 1999 and April 26, 2000, the day before the initial fact-finding hearing. The psychologist diagnosed respondent as suffering from schizophrenia, paranoid type, involving visual and auditory hallucinations. Significantly, the psychologist testified that respondent’s psychosis essentially prevented her from providing adequate parentаl care, presently and in the future, since respondent continued to refuse to acknowledge the existence аnd depth of her mental illness and to accept and follow recommended treatment to alleviate her psyсhotic episodes. Finally, the record reveals testimony by a certified social worker who concurred with the psyсhiatrist and psychologist that, as a result of respondent’s refusal to acknowledge and treat her illness, she was unable tо interact with or care for the child now or at any time in the foreseeable future.
Before parental rights may be tеrminated due to an inability to presently and for the foreseeable future provide proper and adequate care for a child by reason of mental illness (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c]), there must be testimony from appropriate medical witnesses particularizing how the parent’s mental illness affects his or her present and future ability to cаre for the child (see, Matter of Joyce T.,
Moreover, there is no support for respondent’s contention that petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to plan for the future of the child after he was placed in petitionеr’s custody. The inability of respondent to acknowledge the existence of her mental illness and to address and undertakе the treatment required therefor is itself sufficient evidence to support the finding of permanent neglect (see, Matter of Elijah F.,
We have examined the balance of respondent’s contentions and find thеm to be equally unpersuasive. The fact that Family Court did not conduct a dispositional hearing after sustaining the allegatiоns of the petition does not require reversal as urged by respondent. First, respondent neither objected to the lack of a dispositional hearing nor urged Family Court to conduct such a hearing and, therefore, the issue has not been prеserved for appellate review (see, Matter of Sharon P.I.,
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.