IN RE: EVALYNN R.B. (2023)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights with respect to the subject child on the ground of mental illness. Contrary to the mother's contention, petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that the mother was “presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness ․, to provide proper and adequate care for [the] child” (Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c]; see Matter of Deon M. [Vernon B.], 155 A.D.3d 1586, 1586, 63 N.Y.S.3d 786 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 910, 2018 WL 772534 [2018]). Petitioner presented the testimony of an expert psychologist who opined that the mother suffered from mental illness and as a result, the child “ ‘would be in danger of being neglected if [she] returned to [the mother's] care at the present time or in the foreseeable future’ ” (Matter of Matilda B. [Gerald B.], 187 A.D.3d 1677, 1678, 132 N.Y.S.3d 227 [4th Dept. 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 905, 2021 WL 504696 [2021]; see Matter of Norah T. [Norman T.], 165 A.D.3d 1644, 1644-1645, 85 N.Y.S.3d 326 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 915, 2019 WL 637865 [2019]).

The mother's contention that Family Court erred in failing to qualify her mental health counselor as an expert is unpreserved for our review, inasmuch as the mother never asked the court to qualify the mental health counselor as an expert (see Matter of Kaitlyn R., 267 A.D.2d 894, 896, 700 N.Y.S.2d 533 [3d Dept. 1999]; see generally Norah T., 165 A.D.3d at 1645, 85 N.Y.S.3d 326).