In re Edward Franz F.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Edward Franz F.

186 A.D.2d 256, 588 N.Y.S.2d 331, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10839

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 186 A.D.2d 256 (In re Edward Franz F.) 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 Edward Franz F., 186 A.D.2d 256, 588 N.Y.S.2d 331, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In an adoption proceeding, the petitioners appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated April 23, 1992, as dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[257]*257There is a heavy burden of constitutional magnitude on one who seeks to terminate the rights of a natural parent through adoption (see, Matter of Corey L v Martin L, 45 NY2d 383; Matter of Pavlovic v Pavlovic, 124 AD2d 732). "Abandonment, as it pertains to adoption, relates to such conduct on the part of a parent as evinces a purposeful ridding of parental obligations and the foregoing of parental rights—a withholding of interest, presence, affection, care and support” (Matter of Corey L v Martin L, supra, at 391). Furthermore, where, as here, the evidence establishes that "a parent’s efforts to visit, contact or communicate with his [or her] child have been thwarted or interfered with, a finding of abandonment as a matter of law is improper and unjustified” (Matter of Pavlovic v Pavlovic, supra, at 733; Matter of Sharon H. v Foster, 153 AD2d 627, 628). We are satisfied that the evidence presented by the appellants failed to establish abandonment. Accordingly, the court properly dismissed the petition. Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

In an adoption proceeding, the petitioners appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated April 23, 1992, as dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[257]*257There is a heavy burden of constitutional magnitude on one who seeks to terminate the rights of a natural parent through adoption (see, Matter of Corey L v Martin L, 45 NY2d 383; Matter of Pavlovic v Pavlovic, 124 AD2d 732). "Abandonment, as it pertains to adoption, relates to such conduct on the part of a parent as evinces a purposeful ridding of parental obligations and the foregoing of parental rights—a withholding of interest, presence, affection, care and support” (Matter of Corey L v Martin L, supra, at 391). Furthermore, where, as here, the evidence establishes that "a parent’s efforts to visit, contact or communicate with his [or her] child have been thwarted or interfered with, a finding of abandonment as a matter of law is improper and unjustified” (Matter of Pavlovic v Pavlovic, supra, at 733; Matter of Sharon H. v Foster, 153 AD2d 627, 628). We are satisfied that the evidence presented by the appellants failed to establish abandonment. Accordingly, the court properly dismissed the petition. Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 256, 588 N.Y.S.2d 331, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-edward-franz-f-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack