In re Hime Y., 427 N.E.2d 245 (N.Y. 1981)

Mental illness, in itself, does not automatically excuse a parent from the obligation to plan for the future of their child in a permanent neglect proceeding; a separate and distinct finding must be made that the parent is presently and for the foreseeable future unable to care for the child due to the mental illness.

Summary

This case addresses the circumstances under which parental rights can be terminated due to mental illness or permanent neglect. The New York Court of Appeals held that while evidence supported the mother’s present inability to care for her child due to mental illness, there was insufficient proof regarding her future inability. Further, the court clarified that mental illness does not automatically equate to a physical inability to plan for the child’s future, which is a requirement for a finding of permanent neglect. The case was remitted to the Appellate Division to determine if the mother’s parental rights could be terminated due to permanent neglect.

Facts

Hime Y. was placed in foster care shortly after birth due to allegations of neglect. The Jewish Child Care Association filed a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights, arguing both that the mother was mentally ill and unable to care for the child and that she had permanently neglected the child by failing to plan for her future despite the agency’s efforts to assist her.

Procedural History

The Family Court dismissed the petition, awarding custody to the foster parents with visitation rights for the mother. The Appellate Division modified the Family Court’s decision, granting the petition to terminate parental rights based on the mother’s mental illness and deeming the permanent neglect claim moot. The mother appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that the mother was presently and for the foreseeable future unable to provide proper care for her child due to mental illness, justifying termination of her parental rights.

2. Whether mental illness, in and of itself, excuses a parent from the obligation to plan for the future of the child, as required to avoid a finding of permanent neglect.

Holding

1. No, because while the evidence supported a finding of present inability, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the mother would be unable to care for the child for the foreseeable future.

2. No, because the statute requires a separate determination of physical and financial ability to plan for the child’s future, and mental illness does not automatically equate to a physical disability.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals found that the Appellate Division erred in terminating parental rights based solely on mental illness without sufficient evidence of future inability to care for the child. The court-appointed psychiatrist testified that the mother showed improvement and might be able to care for the child in the future with ongoing treatment and medication. The court stated, “I think that remaining in remission and given therapeutic support that she might very well be able to rear the child”. The Court emphasized that any conclusion about future inability would be speculative and lacked the clear and convincing proof required for termination of parental rights.

Regarding permanent neglect, the Court clarified that the statute requires the parent to be “physically and financially” able to plan for the child’s future. It rejected the Appellate Division’s view that mental illness automatically equates to physical inability, stating: “We do not read the language as encompassing mental condition or status, nor do we, as did the Appellate Division, equate mental and physical capacity.” The Court reasoned that if mental illness were an acceptable excuse for failing to plan, the statutory provision would be rendered nearly useless, as many parents who fail to plan may have some form of mental disturbance. The Court noted that the statute addresses mental illness specifically in other sections, implying a deliberate choice not to include it as an automatic exemption for failing to plan. The court noted that under the statute, drug and alcohol use doesn’t excuse the requirement to plan unless the parent is hospitalized for it, further emphasizing that the statute means what it says.