You are here: / / THE 2022 AMENDMENT TO DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW 111 REQUIRING CONSENT TO ADOPTION...

THE 2022 AMENDMENT TO DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW 111 REQUIRING CONSENT TO ADOPTION BY A NONMARITAL FATHER WHO HAS ACKNOWLEDGED PATERNITY APPLIES RETROATIVELY; TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice O’Neill Levy, reversing Family Court, vacating the termination of respondent father’s parental rights, determined the 2022 amendment of Domestic Relations Law section 111 requiring consent for adoption by a nonmarital parent who has acknowledged paternity applied retroactively to this proceeding:

Domestic Relations Law § 111 was amended, effective December 30, 2022. Pursuant to section 111(1)(e)(iv), and subject to certain criteria, it now requires consent for adoption by any nonmarital parent who has executed an unrevoked acknowledgement of parentage or filed an unrevoked notice of intent to claim parentage of a child. The amendment did away with the necessity for some parents with children in foster care to establish that in addition to having visited or regularly communicated with the child that they made payments to the foster care agency caring for the child. The legislature acknowledged that this requirement resulted in noncompliant or unknowing parents permanently losing their parental rights by being relegated to receiving only notice of the termination proceedings …. This amendment went into effect three years after Family Court’s July 2019 determination that respondent father was solely entitled to notice that the agency was seeking to terminate parental rights to free the child for adoption but before the May 2023 dispositional order was issued. * * *

Generally, a statute “will not be given retroactive construction unless an intention to make it so can be deduced from its wording” … . A legislative directive that a law shall “take effect immediately,” coupled with the remedial nature of the amendment, indicates a “‘sense of urgency'” that should be effectuated through retroactive application … . The purpose of remedial statutes is to correct imperfections in prior law by giving relief to an aggrieved party … , to the extent that they do not impair vested rights or bestow additional rights … . As the express purpose of the amendment at issue was to correct how the law applied to nonmarital parents and was “effective immediately,” we find that it should be given retroactive effect. Matter of C.C. v D.C., 2025 NY Slip Op 05017, First Dept 9-18-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise analysis of the criteria for retroactive application of a statutory amendment.

 

You might also like
Failure to Strictly Comply with the Statutory Requirements for the Contents of a Parking Ticket Invalidates the Ticket
AN ACCOUNT-STATED ACTION IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF A BREACH-OF-CONTRACT ACTION; HERE PLAINTIFF DIVORCE ATTORNEYS PROPERLY SOUGHT PAYMENT UNDER BOTH ACCOUNT-STATED AND BREACH-OF-RETAINER-AGREEMENT THEORIES AND THE COURT PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ACCOUNT-STATED CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
Lawsuit Alleging Lehman Brothers’ Substitution of Toxic Securities for High Value Securities Can Go Forward
Questions of Fact Existed About Whether Mortgage Lender Was Aware of Underlying “Foreclosure Rescue Scam”
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPLACE OR DISMISS HIS STANDBY COUNSEL PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
Telephone-Communication Buy-Sell Arrangements Sufficient for Long-Arm Jurisdiction/Forum Selection Clause In Invoices Not Enforceable Pursuant to UCC 207
THE STATE ACTION ON A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR DEBT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON CLAIM PRECLUSION OR RES JUDICATA GROUNDS BASED UPON THE DISMISSAL OF A FEDERAL ACTION AGAINST A DEFENDANT WHO WAS NOT A PARTY IN THE STATE ACTION, THE FACT THAT THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE STATE ACTION MAY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO INTERVENE OR ASSIGN THEIR RIGHTS TO THE DEFENDANT IN THE FEDERAL ACTION WAS NOT A PROPER GROUND FOR CLAIM PRECLUSION (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT BREACHED THE CONTRACT BY FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE-TO-CURE PROVISION BEFORE TERMINATING IT; THE REASON FOR TERMINATION, FAULTY WORK, WAS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE NOTICE-TO-CURE REQUIREMENT (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THAT TRADITIONAL SERVICE OF PROCESS WAS “IMPRACTICABLE;”... DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RENEW THE MOTION TO DISMISS...