People ex rel. Louisa v. Faella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Louisa v. Faella

37 A.D.2d 598, 322 N.Y.S.2d 831, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3855

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

DecidedJune 14, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 37 A.D.2d 598 (People ex rel. Louisa v. Faella) 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

People ex rel. Louisa v. Faella, 37 A.D.2d 598, 322 N.Y.S.2d 831, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3855 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding to obtain custody of a child, the appeal is from an order of the Family ¡Court, Kings County, dated November 19, 1970, which dismissed the writ and awarded custody of the child to respondents. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, writ sustained and custody of the child awarded to petitioner Patricia Louisa. On this record it is, to say the least, doubtful that the surrender by petitioner Patricia Louisa of her baby and her consent to the child's adoption were truly voluntary. If it be assumed that they were, the consent was effectively revoked by a request for the return of the baby less than 30 days after it was surrendered and the consent was signed. And in this contest between the natural parent (petitioner) and nonparents (respondents) we further find on this record that respondents did not sustain their burden of proving that petitioner abandoned the baby or is “unfit to assume the duties and privileges of parenthood ”, within the guidelines of People ex rel. Kropp v. Shepsky (305 N. Y. 465, 468) and People ex rel. Scarpetta, v. Spence-Chapin Adoption Serv. (28 N Y 2d 185). (See, also, Matter of Anonymous, 60 Misc 2d 854; ef. People ex rel. Anonymous v. Anonymous, 10 N Y 2d 332.) Hence petitioner's writ should have been sustained and custody of the baby awarded to her. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In a habeas corpus proceeding to obtain custody of a child, the appeal is from an order of the Family ¡Court, Kings County, dated November 19, 1970, which dismissed the writ and awarded custody of the child to respondents. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, writ sustained and custody of the child awarded to petitioner Patricia Louisa. On this record it is, to say the least, doubtful that the surrender by petitioner Patricia Louisa of her baby and her consent to the child's adoption were truly voluntary. If it be assumed that they were, the consent was effectively revoked by a request for the return of the baby less than 30 days after it was surrendered and the consent was signed. And in this contest between the natural parent (petitioner) and nonparents (respondents) we further find on this record that respondents did not sustain their burden of proving that petitioner abandoned the baby or is “unfit to assume the duties and privileges of parenthood ”, within the guidelines of People ex rel. Kropp v. Shepsky (305 N. Y. 465, 468) and People ex rel. Scarpetta, v. Spence-Chapin Adoption Serv. (28 N Y 2d 185). (See, also, Matter of Anonymous, 60 Misc 2d 854; ef. People ex rel. Anonymous v. Anonymous, 10 N Y 2d 332.) Hence petitioner's writ should have been sustained and custody of the baby awarded to her. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 598, 322 N.Y.S.2d 831, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-louisa-v-faella-nyappdiv-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack