Karen Beth B. v. Douglas G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karen Beth B. v. Douglas G.

216 A.D.2d 12, 627 N.Y.S.2d 367, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5831

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

DecidedJune 1, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 12 (Karen Beth B. v. Douglas G.) 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

Karen Beth B. v. Douglas G., 216 A.D.2d 12, 627 N.Y.S.2d 367, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5831 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on or about April 29, 1993, which denied respondent’s objections to the Hearing Examiner’s orders of filiation and support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[13]*13The Affidavit of Relinquishment of Parental Rights signed by respondent father, apart from its noncompliance with the requirements of Texas Family Code § 15.03 (a) that such an affidavit be signed after the birth of the child by the parent whose parental rights are to be relinquished and verified before a person authorized to take oaths, is ineffective by itself to terminate parental rights, which only a court can do. The purpose of a paternity proceeding and the imposition of support obligations being the welfare of the child (Matter of L. Pamela P. v Frank S., 59 NY2d 1, 5), a parent should not be able to avoid his duty to support the child by claiming that the other parent is guilty of laches or otherwise estopped from seeking support because she once requested that he sign a relinquishment of his parental rights or waited some seven or eight years to commence a support proceeding (see, Matter of Discenza [Lorraine NN.J v Dann 00., 148 AD2d 196, 198, lv dismissed 75 NY2d 765).

We have considered respondent’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on or about April 29, 1993, which denied respondent’s objections to the Hearing Examiner’s orders of filiation and support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[13]*13The Affidavit of Relinquishment of Parental Rights signed by respondent father, apart from its noncompliance with the requirements of Texas Family Code § 15.03 (a) that such an affidavit be signed after the birth of the child by the parent whose parental rights are to be relinquished and verified before a person authorized to take oaths, is ineffective by itself to terminate parental rights, which only a court can do. The purpose of a paternity proceeding and the imposition of support obligations being the welfare of the child (Matter of L. Pamela P. v Frank S., 59 NY2d 1, 5), a parent should not be able to avoid his duty to support the child by claiming that the other parent is guilty of laches or otherwise estopped from seeking support because she once requested that he sign a relinquishment of his parental rights or waited some seven or eight years to commence a support proceeding (see, Matter of Discenza [Lorraine NN.J v Dann 00., 148 AD2d 196, 198, lv dismissed 75 NY2d 765).

We have considered respondent’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 12, 627 N.Y.S.2d 367, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karen-beth-b-v-douglas-g-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack