Matter of Juliette JJ. (Parris JJ.)
Michael W. Brosnan, Duanesburg, for appellant.
Christopher H. Gardner, County Attorney, Schenectady (Ursula E. Hall of counsel), for respondent.
Patricia Rodriguez, Schenectady, attorney for the child.
Garry, J. Appeals from twо orders of the Family Court of Schenectady County (Assini, J.), entered October 28, 2009 and March 12, 2010, which, among other things, granted petitioner‘s application, in a proceeding pursuant to
Respondent and his wife are the parents of Juliette JJ. (hereinafter the child). The child was removed from her parents’ care shortly after her birth in 2001 because respondent was allegedly allowing the wife, who hаs been diagnosed with schizophrenia, to care for her. The child was thereafter returned to her parents’ care but thеn again removed in October 2006. Respondent consented to a finding of neglect, and care and custody of the child by petitioner was continued. In August 2008, petitioner commenced separate permanent neglect proceedings seеking termination of both parents’ parental rights. Following a fact-finding hearing, Family Court found that respondent had permanently neglected the child and, after a dispositional
To demonstrate permanent neglect, petitioner was required to show by clear and convincing evidence, as relevant here, that respondent “failed to plan for the child‘s future for a pеriod of one year after the child was removed from his . . . care, although physically and financially able to do so” (Matter of Audrey I., 57 AD3d 1172, 1173 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 704 [2009]; see
Although respondent participated in numerous services provided by petitioner such as parent education аnd mental health counseling, the record indicates that he “did not meaningfully benefit from those services or otherwise express insight into the circumstances that caused the [child‘s] removal from [his] care” (Matter of Audrey I., 57 AD3d at 1174). Petitioner‘s witnesses included a caseworker, a family specialist who supervised respondent‘s visits with the child, and a psychologist who evaluated the family three times over a 10-year period. Their testimony and that of respondent himself established that he does not fully appreciate the severity of his wife‘s mental illness or its impact on the child. The caseworker testified that respondent expressed reluctancе to medicate his wife and claimed that, even though he has been unemployed since 2001, he did not have time to make sure she complied with treatment. Respondent testified that he believed that the only impact his wife‘s illness had on the child was a communication problem that was alleviated by his presence. However, the family specialist testified that the wife‘s rambling, violent comments often frightened the child during visits and that respondent did not intervene, even when directly asked to do so.
The testimony further revealed that respondent‘s own mental health issues negatively affect his ability to provide a safe, stable home for thе child. According to the psychologist, these include obsessive compulsive disorder and anxiety so severe that respоndent is unable to provide the child with adequate care and supervision. The psychologist testified that the child suffers from significаnt developmental delays which he opined were caused by her chaotic early upbringing in respondent‘s home. Respondent minimized these problems. He insisted that the child improved after she was placed in foster care only because she grew older, and he consistently failed to attend special education meetings or arrived too late to pаrticipate. Although respondent expressed sincere wishes for the child‘s return, he was unable to articulate any plans for such an eventuality beyond making sure that she was not left alone with his wife. Accordingly, clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that respondent permanently neglected the child by failing to make realistic plans for her future (see Matter of Nahia M., 39 AD3d 918, 920-921 [2007]).
Finally, respondеnt contends that his parental rights should not have been terminated. “Following an adjudication of permanent neglect, the sоle concern . . . is the best interests of the child and there is no presumption that any particular disposition, including the return of а child to a parent, promotes such interests” (Matter of Angelica VV., 53 AD3d 732, 733 [2008] [citations omitted]; see
Mercure, J.P., Sрain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs.