New York Court of Appeals, 1982

In re the Guardianship & Custody of Dochingozi B.

New York Court of Appeals · Decided July 2, 1982 · Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer Concur in Memorandum Judge Gabrielli Concurs in Result Only

57 N.Y.2d 641; 454 N.Y.S.2d 63; 439 N.E.2d 872; 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3594

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Juliet W. (Amy W.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
In re Nicholas B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
In re Nicholas B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
B., DARIUS, MTR. OF (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
In re Darius B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
In re Loretta C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
In re Jasmine R. (NYC Family Court 2005)
Matter of Jasmine R. (Queens Family Court 2005)
In re Tatesha M.G. Forestdale, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
In re Dylan K. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
In re Edon F. Angel Guardian Home (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
In re Erica J. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
In re Bates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
In re Richardson (N.Y. 1985)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to the Family Court, New York County, for further proceedings on the petition.

The record in this proceeding to terminate parental rights does not support the finding that the natural 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, subd 4, par [c]). The quality and quantity of the psychiatric testimony was insufficient to sdtisfy the requirement of “strict adherence to that statutory mandate” (Matter of Daniel A. D., 49 NY2d 788, 790) requiring production of “clear and convincing proof” (Social Services Law, § 384-b, *643 subd 3, par [g]) of a parent’s present and future inability to care for his Or her child because of mental illness. The psychiatric examination was brief and occurred approximately nine months prior to the hearing. There was no articulated basis for the testimony concerning the extent of the mother’s illness and its manifestations. At most, the testimony related to matters concerning her past condition. The inferences as to future condition apparently drawn from the mother’s past behavior are not adequately supported so as to satisfy the statutory test and, consequently, terminating her parental rights was improper.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum; Judge Gabrielli concurs in result only.

Order reversed, etc.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.