Matter of Baby Girl N. (Milagros S.--Leeanders H.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Baby Girl N. (Milagros S.--Leeanders H.)

122 A.D.3d 858, 996 N.Y.S.2d 367

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

DecidedNovember 19, 2014

Docket2013-09330

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 122 A.D.3d 858 (Matter of Baby Girl N. (Milagros S.--Leeanders H.)) 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

Matter of Baby Girl N. (Milagros S.--Leeanders H.), 122 A.D.3d 858, 996 N.Y.S.2d 367 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an adoption proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law article 7 (proceeding No. 1), and a related custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 (proceeding No. 2), Milagros S. and Jose S. appeal from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J), dated September 30, 2013, which, after a hearing, determined that Leeanders H.’s consent *859 to the adoption of the subject child was required, and, in effect, denied their petition in proceeding No. 1, dismissed that proceeding, and awarded Leeanders H. temporary custody of the child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellants are the petitioners in an adoption proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law article 7. They were the prospective adoptive parents of the subject child, who was placed for adoption by the unwed birth mother upon the child’s birth. The appellants contend that the unwed birth father’s consent to the adoption was not required. Following a hearing, the Family Court determined that the unwed birth father’s consent was necessary, and, in effect, denied their adoption petition and dismissed that proceeding.

There is no basis to disturb the Family Court’s determination that the unwed birth father was a person whose consent was required in order for the child to be adopted. The Family Court found that during the six-month period prior to the subject child’s placement with the appellants upon her birth, the unwed birth father promptly asserted his interest in the child, manifested his ability and willingness to assume custody of the child, and provided financial and moral support to the birth mother (see Matter of Raquel Marie X., 76 NY2d 387 [1990]; Matter of Kiran Chandini S., 166 AD2d 599 [1990]). Contrary to the appellants’ contention, these findings have a sound and substantial basis in the record.

Dillon, J.E, Chambers, Cohen and Maltese, JJ., concur.

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

In an adoption proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law article 7 (proceeding No. 1), and a related custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 (proceeding No. 2), Milagros S. and Jose S. appeal from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J), dated September 30, 2013, which, after a hearing, determined that Leeanders H.’s consent *859 to the adoption of the subject child was required, and, in effect, denied their petition in proceeding No. 1, dismissed that proceeding, and awarded Leeanders H. temporary custody of the child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellants are the petitioners in an adoption proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law article 7. They were the prospective adoptive parents of the subject child, who was placed for adoption by the unwed birth mother upon the child’s birth. The appellants contend that the unwed birth father’s consent to the adoption was not required. Following a hearing, the Family Court determined that the unwed birth father’s consent was necessary, and, in effect, denied their adoption petition and dismissed that proceeding.

There is no basis to disturb the Family Court’s determination that the unwed birth father was a person whose consent was required in order for the child to be adopted. The Family Court found that during the six-month period prior to the subject child’s placement with the appellants upon her birth, the unwed birth father promptly asserted his interest in the child, manifested his ability and willingness to assume custody of the child, and provided financial and moral support to the birth mother (see Matter of Raquel Marie X., 76 NY2d 387 [1990]; Matter of Kiran Chandini S., 166 AD2d 599 [1990]). Contrary to the appellants’ contention, these findings have a sound and substantial basis in the record.

Dillon, J.E, Chambers, Cohen and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.3d 858, 996 N.Y.S.2d 367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-baby-girl-n-milagros-s-leeanders-h-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack