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: Jamiah Sharang C., A Dependent Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Kamila N., Respondent–Appellant, Leake & Watts Services, Inc., Petitioner–Respondent.
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, New York (Bryan D. Kreykes of counsel), attorney for the child.
_
Order, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.), entered on or about December 24, 2009, which, upon a finding of mental illness, terminated respondent 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 of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Clear and convincing evidence, including medical records and uncontroverted expert testimony, supports the finding that respondent is presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness, to provide proper and adequate care for her child (see Social Services Law § 384–b[4][c], [6] [a]; Matter of Genesis S. [Irene Elizabeth S.], 70 AD3d 570 [2010] ). Respondent failed to preserve her claim that the psychiatric evidence was insufficient to support such a finding (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 145 [1984]; Matter of Genesis S., 70 AD3d at 570). In any event, given the psychiatrist's unrebutted testimony, the lapse in time between the psychiatric evaluation and the fact-finding hearing does not warrant a different result (see Matter of Robert K., 56 AD3d 353 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 704 [2009] ).
We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
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.
Docket No: 5283
Decided: June 07, 2011
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)