Opinion · New York Court of Appeals

In re the Guardianship & Custody of Nereida S.

In re Guardianship & Custody of Nereida S., 57 N.Y.2d 636 (New York Court of Appeals 1982)

Type: Opinion
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Date: 1982-07-02
Topic: bankruptcy

OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum. The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs. In each of these proceedings to terminate parental rights, the record reveals “clear and convincing proof” (Social Services Law, § 384-b, subd 3, par [g]) that the parent is “presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness * * * to provide proper and adequate care” for the children (Social Services Law, § 384-b, subd 4, par [c]). Consequently, there is no basis for disturbing the Appellate Division’s findings that there exists mental illness sufficient to justify termination of parental rights (cf. Matter of Vera T., 55 NY2d 1028).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed In re the Guardianship & Custody of Nereida S.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 18 opinions

MATTER OF NEREIDA,57 N.Y.2d 636(1982)

In the Matter of the Guardianship and Custody of NEREIDA S. and Another,

Infants. Law Guardian of NEREIDA S. and Another, Infants, Respondents;

CATHOLIC GUARDIAN SOCIETY, Respondent; SAMUEL L., Appellant;

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Intervenor.

In the Matter of the Guardianship and Custody of SYLVIA M. and Another,

Infants. CARDINAL McCLOSKEY SCHOOL AND HOME, Respondent; MANUELA M. et al.,

Appellants; ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Intervenor.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Argued May 11, 1982

Decided July 2, 1982

Page 637

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, JOHN F. POLLARD, J., KEVIN C. FOGARTY, J.Page 638

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.]Page 639

Louise Gruner Gans, Edward N. Simon, Michael B. Hampden, DianeMorrison, Lucy BillingsandNatalie Kaplanfor Samuel L., appellant.Edward N. Simon, Joseph Zalk, Louise Gruner Gans, MarleneHalpern, Carolyn Kubitschek, Lucy BillingsandNatalie Kaplanfor Manuela M., appellant.James A. Cardiellofor Sylvia M., appellant.John F. McGlynn, Barbara H. DildineandLenore Gittis, LawGuardian,for Nereida S. and others, respondents.Page 640David H. BermanandGerald E. Bodellfor Cardinal McCloskey School and Home, respondent.Terry McGuirefor Catholic Guardian Society, respondent.Robert Abrams, Attorney-General(Robert J. SchackandPeter H. Schiffof counsel), intervenorpro se.

MEMORANDUM.

The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

In each of these proceedings to terminate parental rights, the record reveals "clear and convincing proof" (Social Services Law, §384-b, subd 3, par [g]) that the parent is "presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness * * * to provide proper and adequate care" for the children (Social Services Law, §384-b, subd 4, par [c]). Consequently, there is no basis for disturbing the Appellate Division's findings that there exists mental illness sufficient to justify termination of parental rights (cf.Matter of Vera T.,55 N.Y.2d 1028).

Nor is there merit to the broad-based argument that the statutory scheme violates rights of procedural and substantive due process and equal protection. The statutes provide significant procedural safeguards for the natural parent's rights and authorize termination of parental rights only when specific and definite criteria are met and when necessary in the best interest of the child. Similarly unpersuasive is the argument that the statutes authorize termination of rights on the basis of a parent'sstatusas mentally ill. Termination is warranted only when the parent's mental illness manifests itself in conduct demonstrating a present and future inability to care for the child. It is the parent's conduct and relationship with the child, not his or her status per se, that forms the predicate for terminating parental rights. Appellants have failed to establish that the statutory scheme is unconstitutional.

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur; Judge GABRIELLI concurs in result only.Page 641

In each case: Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.