You are here: / / A CONDITIONAL JUDICIAL SURRENDER OF A CHILD FOR ADOPTION MUST BE REVOKED...

A CONDITIONAL JUDICIAL SURRENDER OF A CHILD FOR ADOPTION MUST BE REVOKED WHERE THE DESIGNATED ADOPTIVE PARENT DECLINES TO ADOPT AND THE BIRTH PARENT PROMPTLY APPLIES FOR REVOCATION OF THE JUDICIAL SURRENDER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, reversing Family Court, determined the conditional judicial surrender of a child for adoption must be revoked where the designated adopting parent declines to adopt the child and the birth parent promptly applies for revocation. The child, now 16 years old, had been in foster care for nine years. Although the First Department revoked the judicial surrender, the court remanded the matter for a quick hearing on the petition to terminate mother’s parental rights:

This appeal requires us to resolve an issue not previously addressed by this Court. When the person designated in a conditional judicial surrender as the adopting parent declines to adopt the child must the surrender be revoked upon the birth parent’s application? The Family Court was unwilling to vacate the surrender given the undisputed toll on the child’s well-being as a result of spending virtually her entire life in foster care. Instead, the court held a best interests hearing and determined that the mother’s parental rights remain terminated, and converted her conditional judicial surrender to an unconditional one, which permitted the child to remain free for adoption. This issue pits the basic principle that a parent has a “fundamental liberty interest . . . in the care, custody and management” of his or her child … against this state’s statutory framework governing conditional judicial surrenders … . … We conclude that the order of the Family Court should be reversed because the designated person to adopt is a fundamental condition precedent to a surrender such that the person’s declination mandates its revocation upon the birth parent’s prompt application. * * *

Order, Family Court, … reversed, on the law, … the petition denied and dismissed, and the mother’s application granted and the matter remanded for an expeditious continued hearing on the agency’s petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights.” Matter of L.S. (Diana A.), 2021 NY Slip Op 02085, First Dept 4-1-21

 

You might also like
THE ANTI-SLAPP STATUTES IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW PROTECTED DEFENDANT AGAINST A DEFAMATION ACTION BY THE PLASTIC SURGEON ABOUT WHOM DEFENDANT POSTED NEGATIVE ONLINE REVIEWS; THE COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AND DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AND DAMAGES (FIRST DEPT).
Defense Counsel Deemed Ineffective/Failed to Examine Evidence
Acceptance of Settlement Offer Not Communicated to Opposing Party or Insurer—No Settlement—Attorney Lost Contingency Fee Based on Settlement Amount.
PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED THE RAPE KIT AND BLOOD AND SALIVA EVIDENCE RELATED TO A 1988 PROSECUTION HAD BEEN DESTROYED AND DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AVAILABILITY OF THE EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE VERDICT, MOTION FOR DNA TESTING AND MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
Even Though the Insured Was Faultless, the “Additional Insureds” Endorsement Was Triggered—The Endorsement Covered Acts or Omissions by the Insured Which “Caused” the Underlying Injury Without Any Requirement that the “Cause” Entail Negligence—Here the Insured Was Not Negligent, but the Injury Was “Caused” by Insured’s Non-Negligent Acts—Therefore the Additional Insureds Were Covered Under the Policy
EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HOTEL HELD ITSELF OUT AS THE PROPERTY OWNER ON ITS WEBSITE RAISED THE POSSIBILITY OF LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE AS THE APPARENT AGENT OF THE OWNER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED AS PREMATURE.
DEFENDANT ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL OVERSTATED THE RISK OF DEPORTATION CAUSING HIM TO REJECT A FAVORABLE PLEA OFFER; DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FIRST DEPT).
THE NYC HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION (HRA) WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY OF THE PROCEEDS OF PLAINTIFF’S CAR-ACCIDENT SETTLEMENT BECAUSE THE SETTLEMENT DID NOT INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES; PLAINTIFF WAS BARRED FROM RECOVERY OF MEDICAL COSTS BECAUSE HER BASIC ECONOMIC LOSS WAS LESS THAN $50,000 (INS LAW 5102) (FIRST 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NYU DID NOT ACT ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WHEN IT SUSPENDED THREE STUDENTS... THE DEFAULT LETTER DID NOT DECLARE THE MORTGAGE DEBT IMMEDIATELY DUE AND PAYABLE;...