Court Opinion

ID: 9876116
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 22:50:50.036641+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:08.769111
License: Public Domain

Aarons, J.
(dissenting). We respectfully dissent. We agree with the majority that petitioner demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that respondent, as a consequence of his mental illness, was presently unable to adequately care for the children. Our departure stems from our view that petitioner failed to satisfy the clear and convincing standard to establish that respondent would be unable to adequately care for the children in the foreseeable future. In light of this failure, we would reverse.
Respondent is the father of two children (born in 2009 and *11332014). In May 2015, petitioner filed a petition alleging that respondent was mentally ill and, due to such illness, he was unable to care for the younger child. The petition sought to terminate respondent’s parental rights with respect to the younger child. In June 2015, petitioner filed another petition asserting the same allegations and seeking the same relief with respect to the older child. Following a hearing, Family Court granted the petitions seeking termination of respondent’s parental rights.
In a proceeding to terminate a parent’s parental rights based upon mental illness, petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing proof that “the parent is presently, and will continue for the foreseeable future to be, unable to provide proper and adequate care for the child [ren] by reason of the parent’s mental illness” (Matter of Summer SS. [Thomas SS.], 139 AD3d 1118, 1119 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c]; Matter of Dakota F. [Angela F.], 110 AD3d 1151, 1153 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1015 [2013]). In our estimation, petitioner’s proof did not meet its burden (see Matter of Arielle Y., 61 AD3d 1061, 1062-1063 [2009]; Matter of Jennifer HH., 193 AD2d 850, 852 [1993]; see generally Matter of Daniel Aaron D., 49 NY2d 788, 790 [1980], revg 66 AD2d 728 [1978]).
Petitioner relied largely on the testimony and report of Richard Liotta, a psychologist who, among other things, reviewed petitioner’s records and respondent’s treatment records, interviewed respondent and administered psychological testing. After concluding that respondent suffered from a myriad of mental conditions, Liotta stated, without equivocation, that respondent’s mental illness rendered him unable to presently care for the children. When probed further by Family Court about such opinion, he responded, “I’m very clear about that.”
Liotta, however, did not express the same level of conviction and resolve when giving his opinion as to whether respondent’s mental illness rendered him unable to care for the children in the foreseeable future. Although Liotta ultimately responded “ [y] es” to the question asking whether respondent’s affliction rendered him unable to care for the children in the foreseeable future, he qualified that answer in his report by characterizing it as a “close call.” While Liotta also explained in his report that respondent was at risk for an episodic relapse, he also noted that “[p]art of what makes the determination difficult is that [respondent] has the potential to be an adequate parent much of the time.” Liotta noted the negative indicators weigh*1134ing against respondent, but also highlighted a host of positive indicators, including respondent’s desire to have his family together, his attempts at sheltering the children from his suspect behavior and that there has been more good than bad when he visits the children.
Indeed, Liotta testified that the foreseeable future question was “challenging” and that it was “a difficult decision.” In an attempt to get a clarification about his opinion as to whether respondent was unable to care for his children in the foreseeable future, Family Court asked Liotta, “[W]ould it be adequate to state that your opinion is, yes, but it’s a very close call?” Liotta responded, “Yes, because of the possible indicators that could lead to reasonable doubt regarding the foreseeable future question” and reiterated twice that it was “a close call.”
In our opinion, Liotta’s multiple “close call” characterizations in his report and testimony did not suffice for petitioner to meet the clear and convincing standard (see Matter of Daniel Aaron D., 49 NY2d at 790). Family Court noted in its decision that “it [was] critical to this action” what Liotta meant when using the term “close call.” The court was nonetheless satisfied that the clear and convincing standard had been hurdled based upon Liotta’s testimony that he was “85 percent to 90 percent” certain. In our view, however, Liotta’s numerical qualification did not provide any clarity as to what Liotta meant by a “close call.” Notwithstanding the 90% certainty in his opinion, Liotta did not trivialize the 10% margin of error and testified that “you know, 10 percent. . . is a pretty big amount when you’re, you know, in terms of the, the certainty.” As such, Liotta’s use of numerical percentages to explain his “close call” characterization, coupled with his testimony that 10% could be “a pretty big amount,” only muddled his opinion (see Matter of Dedrick M., 89 AD2d 781, 781 [1982]). Taking into account Liotta’s admission that respondent could be an adequate parent under the right conditions, his repeated characterizations that the foreseeable future question was a “close call” and the lack of a definitive and unequivocal opinion by Liotta, we find that petitioner failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that respondent’s mental illness rendered him unable to care for the children in the foreseeable future (see Matter of Hime Y., 52 NY2d 242, 248-249 [1981]; Matter of Dedrick M., 89 AD2d at 781).
Finally, the position of the attorneys for the children supporting termination of respondent’s parental rights, while relevant, is not dispositive (see Matter of Gerber v Gerber, 133 AD3d 1133, 1138 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 902 [2016]; see *1135generally Matter of Gentile v Warner, 140 AD3d 1481, 1483 [2016]). Accordingly, we would reverse Family Court’s order.
Garry, J.P., concurs.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.