
    In the Matter of the Guardianship and Custody of Nereida S. and Another, Infants. Law Guardian of Nereida S. and Another, Infants, Respondents; Catholic Guardian Society, Respondent; Samuel L., Appellant; Attorney-General of the State of New York, Intervenor. In the Matter of the Guardianship and Custody of Sylvia M. and Another, Infants. Cardinal McCloskey School and Home, Respondent; Manuela M. et al., Appellants; Attorney-General of the State of New York, Intervenor.
    Argued May 11, 1982
    decided July 2, 1982
    
      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Louise Gruner Gans, Edward N. Simon, Michael B. Hampden, Diane Morrison, Lucy Billings and Natalie Kaplan for Samuel L., appellant.
    
      Edward N. Simon, Joseph Zalk, Louise Gruner Gans, Marlene Halpern, Carolyn Kubitschek, Lucy Billings and Natalie Kaplan for Manuela M., appellant.
    
      James A. Cardiello for Sylvia M., appellant.
    
      John F. McGlynn, Barbara H. D Udine and Lenore Gittis, Law Guardian, for Nereida S. and others, respondents’
    
      
      David H. Berman and Gerald E. Bodell for Cardinal McCloskey School and Home, respondent.
    
      Terry McGuire for Catholic Guardian Society, respondent.
    
      Robert Abrams, Attorney-General {Robert J. Schack and Peter H. Schiff of counsel), intervenor pro se.
    
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

In each of these proceedings to terminate parental rights, the record reveals “clear and convincing proof” (Social Services Law, § 384-b, subd 3, par [g]) that the parent is “presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness * * * to provide proper and adequate care” for the children (Social Services Law, § 384-b, subd 4, par [c]). Consequently, there is no basis for disturbing the Appellate Division’s findings that there exists mental illness sufficient to justify termination of parental rights (cf. Matter of Vera T., 55 NY2d 1028).

Nor is there merit to the broad-based argument that the statutory scheme violates rights of procedural and substantive due process and equal protection. The statutes provide significant procedural safeguards for the natural parent’s rights and authorize termination of parental rights only when specific and definite criteria are met and when necessary in the best interest of the child. Similarly unpersuasive is the argument that the statutes authorize termination of rights on the basis of a parent’s status as mentally ill. Termination is warranted only when the parent’s mental illness manifests itself in conduct demonstrating a present and future inability to care for the child. It is the parent’s conduct and relationship with the child, not his or her status per se, that forms the predicate for terminating parental rights. Appellants have failed to establish that the statutory scheme is unconstitutional.

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

In each case: Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.  