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
Supreme Court’s Finding Respondent Was No Longer Suffering from a Dangerous Mental Condition Reversed
BANK’S MOTION TO CHANGE THE CAPTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE NOTE TO A NEW PLAINTIFF, AND NO PROCEDURAL STEPS TO REMOVE A DECEASED DEFENDANT FROM THE ACTION WERE TAKEN (SECOND DEPT).
DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO DENY NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE NOTICE HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED ON THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND A 50-h HEARING HAD BEEN HELD.
EVIDENCE DEFENDANTS DID NOT CREATE THE WATER-ON-FLOOR CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS FIRST PRESENTED IN REPLY PAPERS; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN ON THAT ISSUE; ALTHOUGH THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS INSPECTED AT 7:00 AT THE START OF THE EVENT AND SOMETIME THEREAFTER, THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC EVIDENCE THE AREA WAS INSPECTED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL AT 8:30, NEAR THE END OF THE EVENT (SECOND DEPT).
“Alter Ego” of Entity Which Employed Plaintiff Protected by Worker’s Compensation Law.
Sua Sponte Dismissal for Lack of Standing Reversed—Defendants Did Not Raise the Defense and Therefore Waived It—Lack of Standing is Not a Jurisdictional Defect
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
FATHER DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THIS CHILD SUPPORT PROCEEDING RESULTING IN HIS COMMITMENT TO THREE MONTHS IN JAIL; NEW HEARING ORDERED (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

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...