IN RE: DAYJAH ANN B. (Anonymous) (2004)

In three related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of mental illness, the mother appeals from three orders of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Staton, J.) (one as to each child), each dated February 19, 2003, which, after a fact-finding hearing, terminated her parental rights and transferred custody and guardianship of the children to St. Christopher-Ottillie and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.

ORDERED that the orders of disposition are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the mother's contentions, there was clear and convincing evidence to support the conclusion that she is, by reason of mental illness, presently and for the foreseeable future unable to provide proper and adequate care for her three children (see Social Services Law § 384-b[4][c];  Matter of Hime Y., 52 N.Y.2d 242, 437 N.Y.S.2d 286, 418 N.E.2d 1305;  Matter of Nina D., 6 A.D.3d 702, 775 N.Y.S.2d 377;  Matter of Michelle H., 228 A.D.2d 440, 643 N.Y.S.2d 646).   After examining the mother and reviewing her records, the court-appointed psychiatrist testified that the mother suffers from bipolar disorder resulting in acute episodes of psychosis which has lead to numerous hospitalizations.   In addition, she suffers from a personality disorder characterized by paranoia, maladaptive behavior, and a strong tendency to ascribe her difficulties to others and other circumstances.   The court-appointed psychiatrist opined that, despite the fact that the mother was not then psychotic, due to the long-term nature of her illness, her lack of insight into her mental condition, her refusal to maintain a course of treatment and take medication, any child placed under her care would be at risk because she would likely suffer a recurrence of psychosis.   On two occasions the mother, when in such a state, assaulted her children.   The court-appointed psychiatrist further testified that he did not think her condition would stabilize in the foreseeable future.   This unrebutted testimony was sufficient to support the Family Court's findings (see Matter of Nina D., supra;  Matter of Juliana V., 249 A.D.2d 314, 671 N.Y.S.2d 105;  Matter of Michelle H., supra ).

The mother's remaining contentions are without merit.