Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: S.M.E., D.E.E., and R.S.E. B.J.D. and S.K.D., Petitioners-Respondents; v. H.K.E., Respondent-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent, the biological mother of the subject children, appeals from an order determining, following an evidentiary hearing, that her consent to the adoption of the children by petitioners is not required pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111 (2) (a). We affirm.
Contrary to the mother's contention, we conclude that Family Court properly dispensed with her consent inasmuch as petitioners established by clear and convincing evidence that she abandoned the children by her “failure for a period of six months to visit the child[ren] and communicate with the child[ren] or person having legal custody of the child[ren], although able to do so” (Domestic Relations Law § 111 [2] [a]; see Matter of Brianna B. [Swazette S.—Shacoya L.], 175 A.D.3d 1791, 1792, 109 N.Y.S.3d 784 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 907, 2020 WL 3422331 [2020]). Indeed, petitioners established that, although the mother filed a petition in 2016 seeking visitation with the children, she made no attempt to contact the children or the petitioners for over six months preceding the filing of the amended petitions and second amended petition for adoption. Thus, we conclude that the mother's efforts were so “insubstantial or infrequent” that they did not preclude a finding of abandonment (§ 111 [6] [b]; see Matter of Sophia [Tammy M.W.—Irhad R.], 195 A.D.3d 1549, 1550, 145 N.Y.S.3d 906 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 914, 2021 WL 5409312 [2021]). Further, the court “was entitled to discredit the testimony of the mother that petitioners thwarted her efforts to contact the child[ren],” and we conclude that the record does not support the mother's contention that petitioners interfered with any such efforts (Matter of Patrick D., 52 A.D.3d 1280, 1281, 860 N.Y.S.2d 697 [4th Dept. 2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 711, 872 N.Y.S.2d 73, 900 N.E.2d 556 [2008]; see Brianna B., 175 A.D.3d at 1792, 109 N.Y.S.3d 784; Matter of Brittany S., 24 A.D.3d 1298, 1299, 806 N.Y.S.2d 324 [4th Dept. 2005], lv denied 6 N.Y.3d 708, 813 N.Y.S.2d 44, 846 N.E.2d 475 [2006]).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 516
Decided: June 09, 2023
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)