In re Adoption of Hayley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Adoption of Hayley

289 A.D.2d 1077, 735 N.Y.S.2d 854, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12853

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 21, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 1077 (In re Adoption of Hayley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Adoption of Hayley, 289 A.D.2d 1077, 735 N.Y.S.2d 854, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12853 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Contrary to petitioners’ contention, Family Court properly placed the ultimate burden of proof on petitioners to establish that respondent had forfeited his right to contest the adoption of his daughter by petitioners. The court properly determined that respondent met his initial burden of establishing that he “maintained substantial and continuous or repeated contact” with his daughter (Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [dj; see, Matter of Andrew Peter H. T., 64 NY2d 1090, 1091), and that petitioners then failed to establish that respondent “evince [d] an intent to forego his * * * parental or custodial rights and obligations” (Domestic Relations Law § 111 [2] [a]; see, Domestic Relations Law § 111 [6] [d]). The court’s determination is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record and therefore will not be disturbed on appeal (see generally, Matter of Cline v Cline, 229 AD2d 671, 672; Matter of Pieri v Rider, 195 AD2d 1013). (Appeal from Order of Oswego County Family Court, Roman, J. — Adoption.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Contrary to petitioners’ contention, Family Court properly placed the ultimate burden of proof on petitioners to establish that respondent had forfeited his right to contest the adoption of his daughter by petitioners. The court properly determined that respondent met his initial burden of establishing that he “maintained substantial and continuous or repeated contact” with his daughter (Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [dj; see, Matter of Andrew Peter H. T., 64 NY2d 1090, 1091), and that petitioners then failed to establish that respondent “evince [d] an intent to forego his * * * parental or custodial rights and obligations” (Domestic Relations Law § 111 [2] [a]; see, Domestic Relations Law § 111 [6] [d]). The court’s determination is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record and therefore will not be disturbed on appeal (see generally, Matter of Cline v Cline, 229 AD2d 671, 672; Matter of Pieri v Rider, 195 AD2d 1013). (Appeal from Order of Oswego County Family Court, Roman, J. — Adoption.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 1077, 735 N.Y.S.2d 854, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-adoption-of-hayley-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack