IN RE: ELIZABETH H. also known as Elizabeth S. (2018)

Order, Family Court, New York County (Emily Olshansky, J.), entered on or about May 23, 2017, which, inter alia, upon findings that respondent mother suffers from a mental illness and that she permanently neglected the subject child, terminated her parental rights and committed custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The agency established by clear and convincing evidence that the mother is “presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness ․, to provide proper and adequate care” for her child (Social Services Law 384–b[4][c];  see Matter of Thaddueus Jacob C. [Tanya K.M.], 104 A.D.3d 558, 962 N.Y.S.2d 106 [1st Dept. 2013] ).  Such evidence included a report and testimony from a court-appointed psychologist who, after examining the mother and reviewing medical and other records, opined that she suffers from bipolar disorder and alcohol use disorder and that, as a result, if the child were returned to her care, she would be at risk of becoming neglected (see Social Services Law § 384–b[6][a];  Matter of Savannah Love Joy F. [Andrea D.], 110 A.D.3d 529, 973 N.Y.S.2d 165 [1st Dept. 2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 858, 2014 WL 112433 [2014] ).  The expert's opinion was based, among other things, on the mother's long history of mental illness, her noncompliance with psychiatric treatment, and the pervasive nature of her deficits (see Matter of Brianna Monique F. [Monique F.], 129 A.D.3d 638, 13 N.Y.S.3d 33 [1st Dept. 2015] ), and the mother did not offer evidence in rebuttal.

Furthermore, the finding of permanent neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence.  The record shows that the agency engaged in diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship by making necessary referrals to mental health services and drug treatment programs, as well as arranging consistent visitation, but the mother failed to take advantage of these referrals and programs, and failed to visit consistently with the child (see e.g. Matter of Angelicah U. [Reggie U.], 155 A.D.3d 455, 64 N.Y.S.3d 15 [1st Dept. 2017], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 997, 74 N.Y.S.3d 158, 97 N.E.3d 707 [2018] ).

Contrary to the mother's argument, the court reasonably exercised it discretion in limiting cross-examination where her counsel was repeatedly warned of extensive, duplicative and generalized line of questions.  The extensive record further shows that counsel was afforded a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine the agency's expert witness (see Matter of Muldavin v. Muldavin, 248 A.D.2d 209, 670 N.Y.S.2d 24 [1st Dept. 1998] ).

The mother's remaining arguments are unavailing.