In re Vaketa Y.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Sullivan County (Kane, J.), entered July 8, 1986, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, to adjudicate Belanzo Y. a permanently neglected child, and terminated respondent’s parental rights to her three children.
Respondent is the mother of three children; Vaketa, born July 10, 1977, Lotdesa, born July 15, 1981, and Belanzо, born January 10, 1983. The father of these children is unknown.
On April 29, 1983, the children were removed from respondent’s care by a temporary order of Family Court and placed in the custody of petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner filed two petitions in Family Court; one alleged that all three children were neglected, and the second alleged that Vaketa and Lotdesa were abused children. Family Court ordered that the children remain in petitioner’s custody and that respondent undergo a psychiatric evaluation by Sullivan County Mental Health Services. Except for a brief period of several months when Vaketa and Lotdesa were placed with their matеrnal grandmother, the children remained in petitioner’s custody thereafter. Belanzo was born in January 1983 with severe birth defects and remаined hospitalized until May 1983. Upon his release from the hospital, Belanzo was placed directly in foster care by petitioner.
By a petition dated January 31, 1985, petitioner sought to have Belanzo adjudicated a permanently neglected child and to tеrminate respondent’s parental rights (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [d]; [7] [a]). On June 3, 1985, petitioner filed a petition to terminate respondеnt’s parental rights to Vaketa and Lotdesa on the ground that respondent is permanently and for the foreseeable future unablе, by reason of mental illness, to adequately care for them (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c]). A fact-finding hearing concerning both pеtitions was held in October 1985.
At the hearing, respondent’s records from Middletown Psychiatric Hospital were admitted into evidence. Thesе records indicated that, from 1983 to 1985, respondent was an inpatient on three separate occasions and had been diаgnosed as suffering from a schizoaffective disorder. The records further indicated that the last two admissions were precipitatеd by respondent assaulting her boyfriend with a knife. In addition,
Petitioner also adduced the testimony of Dr. Paul Chellappa, a psychiatrist, who examined respondent prior to the hеaring. Chellappa testified that respondent’s condition could possibly improve if she was willing to undergo regular treatment, consisting of clinical counseling and medication. The doctor further testified that without this treatment, respondent would be a danger to her children. Respondent offered no evidence at the hearing.
At the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing, Family Court found Relanzo to be a permanently neglected child and, as to all three children, the court found that respondent is presently and for the foreseеable future unable, by reason of mental illness, to provide adequate care for them. Family Court further ordered respondent tо follow her prescribed aftercare plan as a final opportunity for respondent to demonstrate her willingness to pаrticipate in regular mental health treatment.
Six months later, at the dispositional hearing, Family Court found that respondent had failed to pursue a regular course of treatment and that her mental health was essentially unchanged. Family Court granted an order terminating respondent’s parental rights to the three children. This appeal ensued.
Respondent’s first contention on appeal is that thе psychiatric testimony of Chellappa was insufficient to prove respondent’s future inability to care for her children due to hеr mental illness. We disagree. The psychiatric testimony, combined with the hospital records, provided ample support for Family Cоurt’s findings as to respondent’s future condition. The mere possibility that respondent’s condition, with proper treatment, could improve in the future is insufficient to vitiate Family Court’s conclusion (see, Matter of Vera T., 80 AD2d
Equally unavailing is respondent’s contention that Family Court erred in finding Belanzo to be a permanently neglected child because of the claimed failure of proof that petitioner made diligent efforts to strengthen and encourage the parental relationship. Social Services Law § 384-b (7) (a) requires the agency to make such diligent efforts only "when [the] efforts will not be detrimental to the best interests of the child” (see, Matter of Sheila G.,
Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Levine, Harvey and Mercure, JJ., concur.