2026 NY Slip Op 05906
October 13, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
In the Matter of C.J.C., also known as C.G., A Dependent Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Rising Ground Petitioner-Respondent, O.G., Respondent-Appellant.
Decided and Entered: October 13, 2026
Docket No. B03688/22|Appeal No. 7202|Case No. 2025-03348|
Before: Moulton, J.P., Scarpulla, Michael, Hagler, JJ.
Daniel X. Robinson, New York, for appellant.
Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, PLLC, New York (Melissa C. Wagshul of counsel), for respondent.
Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the child.
Orders of fact-finding and disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Hari K. Singh, J.), entered on or about March 10, 2025, which, after a fact-finding hearing, determined that appellant mother suffers from mental illness as defined in Social Services Law § 384-b, terminated the mother's parental rights to the subject child, and committed custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that the mother's mental illness left her unable to properly and adequately care for the child presently and for the foreseeable future (see Social Services Law § 384-b[4][c]; Matter of Genesis S. [Irene Elizabeth S.], 70 AD3d 570, 570 [1st Dept 2010]). Petitioner presented uncontroverted expert testimony and a report from a psychologist, who, in addition to reviewing the mother's medical records, conducted a mental health evaluation of the mother after the child's birth as well as two more recent clinical interviews. He opined that the mother suffers from schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, which manifests in aggressive behavior, delusions, and mood swings. The evidence further showed that the mother had been hospitalized numerous times for mental illness, did not understand the extent of her mental illness, and, even when medicated, continued to experience symptoms, including delusions about the child. The court properly credited the expert's opinion that mental illness prevents the mother presently and in the foreseeable future from providing care to the child without placing him at risk of neglect were he returned to her (see Matter of Ashanti A., 56 AD3d 373, 373 [1st Dept 2008]; see also Matter of Elizabeth H. [Ylein S.], 165 AD3d 402, 402 [1st Dept 2018]).
Given her long history of mental illness, and the lack of contact or visitation with the child for more than two years, the expert was not required to observe the mother's interactions with the child to provide a competent foundation for his professional opinion (see Matter of Brianna K.R. [Bernard R.], 199 AD3d 500, 501 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 38 NY3d 901 [2022]). Based on the circumstances of this case, the expert's opinion was also not affected by the fact that he did not have the mother's most recent medical records nor conduct collateral interviews (see Matter of Edward E.M. [Edward M.], 222 AD3d 527, 528 [1st Dept 2023]).
A dispositional hearing was not necessary to find that termination of respondent's parental rights is in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Thaddeus Jacob C. [Tanya K.M.], 104 AD3d 558, 559 [1st Dept 2013]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: October 13, 2026