You are here: / / THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER’S CONSENT TO THE ADOPTION OF HIS CHILD WAS...

THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER’S CONSENT TO THE ADOPTION OF HIS CHILD WAS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE HE FAILED TO SUPPORT THE CHILD DESPITE THE MEANS TO DO SO (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined father’s consent to the adoption of his child is not required where the father has not maintained contact with the child:

“A biological father’s consent to adopt a child over six months old who was born out of wedlock is required only if the father ‘maintained substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child as manifested by’ payment of reasonable child support and either monthly visitation or ‘regular communication’ with the subject child[ ] or custodian” … . “Domestic Relations Law § 111(1)(d) imposes a dual requirement upon the biological father, and the father’s unexcused failure to satisfy either of these requirements is sufficient to warrant a finding that his consent to the proposed adoption[ ] is not required” … .

Here, the Family Court properly determined that the father, by failing to financially support the child, despite having the means to do so, did not maintain substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child in accordance with Domestic Relations Law § 111(1)(d) … . Matter of Raniah M. K. (Joma K.), 2021 NY Slip Op 06616, Second Dept 11-24-21

 

You might also like
SENTENCE FOR CONSPIRACY COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED CONCURRENTLY WITH SENTENCES FOR OVERT ACTS WITH WHICH DEFENDANT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN CHARGED IN A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION.
DEFENDANT’S CAR MERELY FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR PLAINTIFF’S BICYCLE ACCIDENT, NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE.
ALTHOUGH A REFERRING PHYSICIAN CAN NOT BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE PHYSICIAN TO WHOM THE PATIENT WAS REFERRED, THE REFERRING PHYSICIAN MAY BE LIABLE FOR HER OWN NEGLIGENCE WITH RESPECT TO CONFERRING WITH THE OTHER PHYSICIAN ABOUT THEIR DIFFERENT FINDINGS (SECOND DEPT).
CAVEAT EMPTOR (BUYER BEWARE) DOES NOT APPLY TO JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE SALES; HERE THE BANK DID NOT DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF A SENIOR MORTGAGE; SALE SET ASIDE AND DOWN PAYMENT RETURNED (SECOND DEPT).
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT COMMITTED BURGLARY; DEFENDANT, THROUGH AN UNLOCKED DOOR, ENTERED A VESTIBULE THAT WAS NOT RESTRICTED TO USE BY TENANTS.
DENIAL OF PAROLE WAS IRRATIONAL, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MEET THE 90-DAY-NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF RPAPL 1304 BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD MOVED FROM THE RESIDENCE; HOWEVER THE BANK WAS STILL REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304 TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE TO THE DEFENDANT; THE PROOF THAT NOTICE WAS MAILED WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
Refusal to Allow Relative’s Testimony Did Not Deny Right to Present a Defense

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

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL... THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE MIRANDA WARNINGS WERE READ TO DEFENDANT BEFORE...