Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: LAMAR RASHARD JUSTIN TREVON B., A Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Dorothy B., Respondent-Appellant, Association to Benefit Children, Petitioner-Respondent.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sara P. Schecter, J.), entered on or about May 27, 2005, terminating respondent's parental rights to the subject child and committing the child's guardianship and custody to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services of the City of New York for the purposes of adoption, following a fact-finding determination of mental illness, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding of mental illness (Social Services Law § 384-b[4] [c],[6] [a] ) is supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence, namely, the psychologist's uncontroverted testimony (Social Services Law § 384-b[6][c] ). There is no indication that the court coached petitioner to amend the petition to assert mental illness, or was otherwise biased against respondent. Concerning the amendment, the record shows only that petitioner's attorney asked if all counsel could approach the bench, and that following an off-the-record conference, the court stated that the petition would be amended to add a claim of mental illness. The amendment was properly allowed in the absence of prejudice and upon conditions that averted surprise. The court, in accordance with respondent's attorney's request, appointed a guardian ad litem for respondent, who had the right to attend respondent's mental health evaluation, and also granted respondent's attorney's request to retain an expert to assist in respondent's defense. Had the motion been denied, petitioner could simply have filed a new petition alleging mental illness. We have considered and rejected respondent's other arguments.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: September 21, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)