State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: June 2, 2016 519683 

519684

________________________________

In the Matter of MARIE ZZ., 

Alleged to be a Permanently 

Neglected Child.

ULSTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

SOCIAL SERVICES,

Respondent;

JEANNE A.,

Appellant.

(Proceeding No. 1.)

________________________________ MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

In the Matter of MARIE ZZ., 

Alleged to be the Child

of a Mentally Ill Parent.

ULSTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

SOCIAL SERVICES,

Respondent;

JEANNE A.,

Appellant.

(Proceeding No. 2.)

________________________________

Calendar Date: April 25, 2016

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Rose, Lynch, Clark and Aarons, JJ.

__________

Kathryn S. Dell, Troy, for appellant.

Daniel Gartenstein, Ulster County Department of Social

Services, Kingston, for respondent.
-2- 519683

519684 

Theodore J. Stein, Woodstock, attorney for the child.

__________

Aarons, J.

Appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Ulster

County (McGinty, J.), entered August 18, 2014, which, among other

things, granted petitioner's applications, in two proceedings

pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, to adjudicate Marie ZZ.

to be a permanently neglected child and the child of a mentally

ill parent, and terminated respondent's parental rights. 

Respondent is the mother of a daughter (born in 2011). 

Shortly after the child's birth, she was removed from the care of

both of her parents, and, in June 2012, Family Court adjudicated

the child to be neglected. In February 2013, petitioner

commenced the first of these proceedings against respondent

seeking a finding of permanent neglect and a termination of her

parental rights. Petitioner thereafter commenced the second of

these proceedings seeking to terminate respondent's parental

rights on the basis of mental illness. After a joint factfinding hearing, in two separate orders, Family Court granted the

petitions, terminated respondent's parental rights and

transferred custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner. 

Respondent appeals. We affirm. 

Respondent's sole contention on appeal is that Family Court

erred by not appointing a guardian ad litem for her. Initially,

we note that at no point during the underlying proceedings did

respondent or her attorney request the appointment of a guardian

ad litem (see Matter of Shawndalaya II., 31 AD3d 823, 825 [2006],

lv denied 7 NY3d 714 [2006]). In any event, despite respondent's

mental illness, the record does not indicate that respondent was

incapable of understanding the proceedings, defending her rights

or assisting her counsel (see Matter of Philip R., 293 AD2d 547,

548 [2002]). In fact, respondent gave coherent testimony in

response to the petitions' allegations, she understood the

severity of her mental illness and the importance of taking
-3- 519683

519684 

medication, and she defended her interactions with the child

during supervised visits. As such, viewing the record as a

whole, we cannot conclude that Family Court erred in failing to

sua sponte appoint a guardian ad litem for respondent (see Matter

of Stephen UU. [Stephen VV.], 81 AD3d 1127, 1128 [2011], lv

denied 17 NY3d 702 [2011]; Matter of Julie G. v Yu-Jen G., 81

AD3d 1079, 1081 [2011]; Matter of Barbara Anne B., 51 AD3d 1018,

1019 [2008]).

Lahtinen, J.P., Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

 ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court