You are here: / / MOTHER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING AN ACTION TO VACATE THE ADOPTION...
,

MOTHER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING AN ACTION TO VACATE THE ADOPTION OF HER CHILD BY HER FORMER HUSBAND PURSUANT TO THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT (ICWA) BECAUSE THE ACT ONLY APPLIES TO CHILDREN REMOVED FROM A PARENT’S CUSTODY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined mother did not have standing to bring an action pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) to vacate an order of adoption in favor of her former husband. Mother alleged the adoption was not accomplished in compliance with the ICWA. The ICWA only applies to a parent from whose custody the child was removed and the child had not been removed from mother’s custody:

… [A]lthough the adoption proceeding involved the voluntary termination of the birth father’s parental rights to the subject child, the plain language of both 25 USC § 1914 and 25 CFR 23.137(a) is clear that only the child, the parent or Indian custodian from whose custody the child has been removed, and the Indian child’s tribe have standing to allege a violation of sections 1911, 1912, or 1913 of the ICWA . Since the mother does not fall in… to any of those categories, she lacked standing to allege a violation of sections 1911, 1912, or 1913 of the ICWA … . “[T]he language of [section] 1914 …  limits standing to challenge state-law terminations of parental right to parents from whose custody such child was removed'” … . Matter of Connor (Mariann D.–Jacob D.), 2019 NY Slip Op 05979, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

You might also like
T-Shirts With the Victim’s Photo Worn by Family Members During the Murder Trial Did Not Deprive Defendant of a Fair Trial
Client’s Motion to Quash Attorney’s Charging Lien Properly Granted Without a Hearing/No “Conflicting Facts” Concerning Whether the Attorney Was Discharged Was For Cause
FOR INMATES WHO COMMITTED CRIMES AS JUVENILES, THEIR YOUTH MUST BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN PAROLE DETERMINATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
GUIDELINES FOR FUTURE CHILD VICTIMS ACT COMPLAINTS WHERE DEFENDANT MOVES TO STRIKE “SCANDALOUS OR PREJUDICIAL MATTER” (SECOND DEPT).
INSTALLING A TV ON A WALL IS NOT AN ACTIVITY COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE FAILURE TO CLEAR ICE AND SNOW AND CERTAIN BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS CAUSED HER SLIP AND FALL; THE “STORM IN PROGRESS” RULE ONLY NEGATED THE CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE FAILURE TO CLEAR THE ICE AND SNOW; THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS WERE INAPPLICABLE; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE COLLAPSE OF A TRENCH IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING WAS AN ELEVATION-RELATED ACCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A CRACKED WINDOW PANE BROKE AND FELL, INJURING HER HAND; THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF AT LEAST 33 INSTANCES WHERE A WINDOW IN DEFENDANT’S BUILDING WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR (A RECURRING DANGEROUS CONDITION), RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD A DUTY TO INSPECT THE WINDOWS (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT DOG OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGMENT SHE HAD HEARD THAT ONE OF HER DOGS... ALTHOUGH THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS VERIFIED BY AN ATTORNEY, THE VERIFICATION...