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: T. (ANONYMOUS). Timothy H. (ANONYMOUS), Appellant, Nicholas P. (ANONYMOUS), Respondent.
In a private placement adoption proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law article 7, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Dounias, J.), dated September 5, 2000, which granted the petition of the mother's husband to adopt the subject child. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order of the same court, dated July 19, 2000, which determined that the father's consent to the adoption was not required.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Family Court properly determined that the father's consent to the adoption was not necessary. The petitioner established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the father evinced an intent to forego his parental rights “by his * * * failure for a period of six months to visit 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, Matter of Shaolin G., 277 A.D.2d 312, 716 N.Y.S.2d 71; Matter of Baby Girl W. D., 251 A.D.2d 501, 674 N.Y.S.2d 714; Matter of Kristin O., 220 A.D.2d 670, 633 N.Y.S.2d 52).
While the background of the mother's husband, particularly his history of alcohol and drug abuse, raises concerns with regard to his fitness, the Family Court properly considered the relevant factors in determining the best interests of the child and granted the petition for adoption (see, Matter of Baby Boy M., 269 A.D.2d 450, 703 N.Y.S.2d 221; Matter of Baby Boy P., 244 A.D.2d 491, 664 N.Y.S.2d 340).
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.
Decided: February 25, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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.
Make It a Preferred Google Search Source
Add to GoogleGet 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)