Articles Posted in adoption

Published on:

by

In custody cases, regardless of the parents’ sexual orientation or the children’s adoption status, the paramount concern remains the well-being and best interests of the children involved. While this particular case involves a same-sex couple and adopted children, the fundamental principles guiding the court’s decision-making process are universal. The court must carefully consider various factors, including the children’s emotional and physical health, their relationship with each parent, stability, and the ability of each parent to provide a nurturing and supportive environment. Ultimately, the goal is to ensure that the children are placed in a living arrangement that promotes their overall welfare and development.

Background Facts

S.R. and N.K. married in 2007. The children, SC1 and SC2, are S.R.’s cousin’s biological children, placed in their care as kinship foster parents. They began fostering SC1 in 2009 and SC2 in 2010 in Binghamton, New York.

by
Posted in: and
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

According to DRL §111, consent from a parent is typically required for adoption in New York State. This applies to both parents unless specific circumstances exist. Consent is deemed necessary unless a parent’s rights have been legally terminated or if the parent has abandoned the child. In cases where a parent has relinquished their parental rights or has failed to maintain contact or support for the child, their consent may not be required for adoption. However, if both parents are alive and capable of providing consent, they must generally agree to the adoption for it to proceed legally. This statute aims to uphold the rights of parents while also ensuring that the best interests of the child are considered in adoption proceedings. It establishes a framework for determining when parental consent is necessary, thereby facilitating the adoption process while safeguarding parental rights and the welfare of the child.

Background Facts

In the adoption proceeding concerning Serenity JJ. and Wyatt JJ., the petitioner, referred to as Petitioner or Mother, testified regarding her relationship with the children and their biological father, Michael UU. The mother explained that she and Michael UU. were divorced in 2019 and that she subsequently married R.S. During the relevant six-month period from August 17, 2021, to February 17, 2022, Petitioner Mother stated that Michael UU. had no contact with the children, did not request visitation, and made no effort to communicate with them. She further testified that there were no legal restrictions preventing Michael UU. from contacting her or the children, nor did she block any attempts at communication.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

The long-standing policy in New York has been that parents have the right to have a relationship with their children and that it is generally in the best interests of the child for the courts to give parents and children the opportunity to foster a positive relationship.  However, there are circumstances where the court finds that it would be in the best interests of the child to not have a relationship with a parent.  In Wilson D. v. Anne B., the court was asked to decide if it would be in the best interests of the child to establish paternity where a child had been living in foster care and a bond had developed between the child and the foster parents.

Background

While incarcerated, the putative father of the child filed a petition for custody. Because paternity had not been established, the court held his petition in abeyance pending the court of a paternity test. Meanwhile the child has been placed in foster care and the foster parents developed a close bond with the child.

Published on:

by

The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) was enacted in response to practices that separated large numbers of Native American children from their families and tribe. See 25 USC § 1901 et seq. It is common for representatives from the relevant Indian tribe to intervene in child custody proceedings involving Indian children. The ICWA established certain placement preferences for Indian children who, as in the case of In re Baby Boy C., are no longer in their parents’ custody.

Background

Defendant Rita C., a Native American member of the Tohono O’odham Nation tribe (Tribe), gave birth to Baby Boy C. in March 2004. The father, Justin W., was not Native American. Rita grew up in a tribal community but eventually left it and no longer participated in its political, social, and religious affairs. Her other children were not being raised in a tribal community.

by
Posted in: and
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

The issue before the court is whether a parent who adopted out her children had the right to seek custody of them upon learning that the children were being sexually abused by the adoptive father.

The petitioner voluntarily surrendered her parental rights to her three children, 2 daughters and a son.  As part of the post-surrender agreement, the mother retained the right to visit with the children, and she did so regularly. The three children were subsequently adopted.  A few years after the adoption, Biological Mother found out that the children were not living in a safe environment.  One of her daughters was being sexually abused by Adoptive Father.  The other daughter was being sexually abused by an unrelated person.  The son was being bullied in the adoptive home.  In response, Biological Mother sought custody of the children.  Adoptive Father admitted that he sexually abused one of the daughters and was in jail. Adoptive Mother filed a motion opposing Biological Mother’s petition, arguing that she had no standing to file for custody.  Adoptive Mother also stated that she wanted to keep the children and that she was divorcing the adoptive father. In addition, the attorney representing the children opposed Biological Mother’s petition for custody.

The question before the court is whether a biological mother who previously surrendered her children has standing to bring an Article 6 custody petition against the children’s adoptive parents in a case where the adoptive father has admitted to sexually abusing one of the children.

by
Posted in: and
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

 

The question presented is whether a child born out of wedlock, who is adopted out of his biological family at birth, is entitled to a share of a trust estate devised by his biological grandmother to her daughter’s issue. The Surrogate’s Court entered a decree in the child’s favor, which has been unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division. We granted leave to appeal and now reverse.

The decedent died in 1973, leaving a will which provided for a residuary trust. Her daughter, was designated as the income beneficiary. Upon her daughter’s death, the trustees were directed to “divide trust fund into as many shares or parts as there shall be issue and to continue to hold each of such shares or parts in trust during the life of one of said persons.” The remainder is to be paid to the surviving descendants at the latest possible date consistent with the Rule against Perpetuities.

Continue reading

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

Arkansas once had a state law that disallowed unmarried, cohabitating couples from becoming adoptive or foster parents – until the Arkansas Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in a unanimous decision, Manhattan Family Lawyers report. They assert, with a circuit judge’s ruling, that the law unconstitutionally burdens fundamental privacy rights.

“This band wouldn’t even allow a relative – gay or straight – to foster or adopt a child with whom they had a close relationship, so long as that relative was unmarried and living with a partner,” an ACLU representative said. “The court clearly saw that this ban violated the constitutional rights of our clients and thousands of other Arkansans.”

A Christian conservative group had another opinion, stating the decision “is the worst ever handed down by the Arkansas Supreme Court.”

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

Families who are looking to adopt a child from Nepal, or who are in the process of doing so, have been put on hold as adoption proceedings have been made more difficult in recent months because of fears of child trafficking, said a New York Family Lawyer. 

Dozens of families that have spent thousands of dollars in adoption fees and overseas travel in attempt to open their homes to abandoned children have been stopped short of finalizing the proceedings because officials in Nepal are concerned that some of the children being adopted out were not really abandoned, but stolen, which has devastated those who are anxiously awaiting the arrival of their new son or daughter. 

The New York Family Lawyer cited cases where adoptive families were given a choice by Nepalese officials to either stay in India until investigations into the birth parents of the child had been resolved, which happens very slowly, or to go back to the US and wait until such proof has been established. In a country where poverty and disease is rampant and children are left to die because no one can care for them, it seems as if adoption by a US family would be in the best interest of the child. 

Even so, describes the New York City Family Lawyer, Americans cannot typically afford to suspend their livelihoods and put everything on hold to remain in Nepal for an undetermined amount of time. Leaving the children that they crossed the globe to rescue and to love proves to be one of the most difficult things an adoptive parent can do, but often there is no choice since things move so slowly. 



Marriage, divorce, custody and adoption all fall under the category of Family Law. A reputable New York Family Attorney is a good resource if you are struggling with any of these issues. Call a recognized New York Family Attorney today for information, education and representation in these areas.The firm of Stephen Bilkis & Associates with convenient locations in the Metropolitan Area, including servicing Brooklyn, New York City, can be of invaluable assistance to you if you find yourself a party to a case. Facing the Court without professional representation could lead to bad results.

Contact Information