IN RE: JAYDEN (Anonymous). (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In two related adoption proceedings pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111, the mother appeals from two orders of the Family Court, Orange County (James M. Hendry III, J.), both dated June 12, 2025.  The orders, after a hearing, granted the petitions for adoption of the subject children.

ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The subject children were born in February 2015.  Since May 2015, the petitioner, who is the children's paternal grandmother, has had custody of the children, and she later became their kinship guardian.  The children have continuously resided with her since that time.

In April 2024, the petitioner filed two petitions to adopt the children, alleging, inter alia, that pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111(2)(a), the mother's consent to adoption was not required.  After a hearing, the Family Court, in effect, determined that the mother had abandoned the children and that the mother's consent to the adoption of the children was therefore not required.  In two orders dated June 12, 2025, the court granted the petitions.  The mother appeals.

Contrary to the mother's contention, the petitioner met her burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that the mother abandoned the children, and that the mother's consent to the adoption of the children therefore was not required (see Matter of Ryan [Jessica D.—Timothy A.], 215 AD3d 857, 858–859;  Matter of Liliana [Kristal L.L.—Jamie L.J.], 213 AD3d 665, 665–666).  Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111(2)(a), consent to adoption is not required of a parent who evinces an intent to forego his or her parental rights and obligations by his or her failure for a period of six months to contact or communicate with the child or the person having legal custody of the child although able to do so (see Matter of J. [Sarajoy V.—Ryan G.], 218 AD3d 583, 584;  Matter of Ryan [Jessica D.—Timothy A.], 215 AD3d at 859).

Here, the evidence presented at the hearing established that from February 2023 through November 2023, the mother had not visited the children or communicated with them or the petitioner.  Although the mother visited the children once in November 2023 and thereafter maintained very limited contact with them and with the petitioner, the mother's communication remained sporadic and insubstantial in nature (see Matter of Liliana [Kristal L.L.—Jamie L.J.], 213 AD3d at 666;  Matter of R. Children [Ronald R.—Heath R.], 119 AD3d 947, 948).  In addition, the evidence established that since 2020, the mother has not sent any letters or gifts to the children or provided any financial support (see Matter of Ryan [Jessica D.—Timothy A.], 215 AD3d at 859;  Matter of Adrianna [Dominick I.—Jessica F.];  144 AD3d 1145, 1146).  The Family Court's determination that the petitioner did not frustrate the mother's contact with the children is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Anonymous, 20 AD3d 562, 563;  Matter of Taylor O.P., 303 A.D.2d 1024, 1024).

Accordingly, the Family Court properly granted the petitions for adoption of the children.

DILLON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.