IN RE: THE ADOPTION OF A CHILD WHOSE FIRST NAME IS AVALYNN (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent, the biological father of the subject child, appeals from an order that determined, following an evidentiary hearing, that respondent's consent to the adoption of the child by petitioner—the child's stepfather—is not required, and granted petitioner's adoption petition. We affirm.

Contrary to respondent's contention, Family Court properly considered the threshold issue of whether he established his right of consent to the adoption. Under the two-step analysis with respect to the biological father “of a child born out-of-wedlock and placed with the adoptive parents more than six months after birth” (Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [f] [i]), “the court must first decide whether the [biological] father has demonstrated a substantial relationship with his child conferring the right of consent” to the adoption (Matter of Anthony S., 291 AD2d 702, 702 [3d Dept 2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 609 [2002]; see Matter of Angelina K. [Eliza W.—Michael K.], 105 AD3d 1310, 1311 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 860 [2013]; see generally Matter of Andrew Peter H.T., 64 NY2d 1090, 1091 [1985]). Only after a biological father establishes his right of consent to the adoption does the court proceed to determine whether he has forfeited that right by “evinc[ing] an intent to forego his ․ parental or custodial rights and obligations as manifested by his ․ failure for a period of six months to visit the child and communicate with the child or person having legal custody of the child, although able to do so” (Domestic Relations Law § 111 [2] [a]; see Andrew Peter H.T., 64 NY2d at 1091). Here, the record supports the court's determination that respondent failed to establish sufficient visitation with the child or communication with the child or the child's mother pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111 (1) (f) (i), and thus failed to establish his right of consent (see Matter of Sophia [Tammy M.W.—Irhad R.], 195 AD3d 1549, 1550 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 914 [2021]).

Finally, contrary to respondent's contention, “ ‘the record, viewed in totality, reveals that [he] received meaningful representation’ ” (Matter of Jemma M. [Ashley M.], 237 AD3d 1569, 1571 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 908 [2025]; see generally Matter of Kayla R. [Lowell L.M.—Scott R.], 67 AD3d 1420, 1420-1421 [4th Dept 2009]).

Entered: July 24, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court