In re the Adoption of Katharine

93 A.D.3d 503, 940 N.Y.S.2d 246
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 15, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 93 A.D.3d 503 (In re the Adoption of Katharine) 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 the Adoption of Katharine, 93 A.D.3d 503, 940 N.Y.S.2d 246 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, S.), entered on or about January 19, 2011, which granted petitioner’s motion for summary judgment determining that respondent father’s consent for the adoption of the subject child is not required, and directed that the matter proceed, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The father’s consent for the adoption of his child was not [504]*504required, since he admitted that he never provided financial support for the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d]; Matter of Cassandra Tammy S. [Babbah S.], 89 AD3d 540, 540 [2011]). The failure of the mother or her sister to notify the father of his support obligation did not excuse him from providing such support (Cassandra Tammy S., 89 AD3d at 540).

The father has not provided any evidence to support his assertion that he was unable to provide financial support for the child. Nor has he presented evidence that the Surrogate’s Court was biased or otherwise mishandled the adoption or guardianship proceedings. Indeed, the father voluntarily consented to withdraw his Family Court petition and proceed in Surrogate’s Court. The Surrogate’s Court had no obligation to inform him of the guardianship petition filed by petitioner upon the death of the child’s mother. In addition, the Surrogate’s Court expressly noted that the father has the right to be heard at the dispositional hearing regarding the best interests of the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 111-a [2] [a]; [3]).

We have considered the father’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of R. (Ronald R.--Heath R.)
119 A.D.3d 947 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
93 A.D.3d 503, 940 N.Y.S.2d 246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-adoption-of-katharine-nyappdiv-2012.