        SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
           Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

153
CAF 11-02352
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.


IN THE MATTER OF CHRISTOPHER B., JR.
------------------------------------------
ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
PETITIONER-RESPONDENT;
                                                  MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER B., SR., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
------------------------------------------
IN THE MATTER OF CHRISTOPHER B., JR.
------------------------------------------
ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
PETITIONER-RESPONDENT;

CHRISTOPHER B., SR., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.


BERNADETTE M. HOPPE, BUFFALO, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

JOSEPH T. JARZEMBEK, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

DAVID C. SCHOPP, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF
BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (CHARLES D. HALVORSEN OF COUNSEL), FOR
CHRISTOPHER B., JR.


     Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret
O. Szczur, J.), entered November 3, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to
Social Services Law § 384-b. The order, among other things, adjudged
that the subject child is the child of a mentally ill parent.

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

     Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order terminating
his parental rights with respect to his son on the ground of mental
illness. Contrary to the father’s contention, we conclude that
petitioner met its burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing
evidence that the father is “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 § 384-b [6] [a]; Matter of Vincent E.D.G. [Rozzie M.G.], 81 AD3d
1285, 1285, lv denied 17 NY3d 703; see also Matter of Darius B.
[Theresa B.], 90 AD3d 1510, 1510). The unequivocal testimony of
petitioner’s expert witness, a psychologist, and other witnesses
established that the father was so disturbed in his behavior, feeling,
thinking and judgment that, if his son were returned to his custody,
his son would be in danger of becoming a neglected child (see § 384-b
                                 -2-                          153
                                                        CAF 11-02352

[6] [a]). Moreover, although the father has participated in several
treatment programs, he has been unable to overcome his significant
limitations.




Entered:   March 15, 2013                      Frances E. Cafarell
                                               Clerk of the Court
