IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT O. (ANONYMOUS), APPELLANT, v. RUSSELL K. (ANONYMOUS)
ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
80 N.Y.2d 254, 604 N.E.2d 99, 590 N.Y.S.2d 37 (1992).
October 27, 1992
2 No. 191
Decided October 27, 1992
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Donald E. Grossfield, for Appellant.
Frederick J. Magovern, for Respondents.
John Francis Phelan, law guardian.
Catholic Adoptive Parents Association, Inc., amicus curiae.
Robert Abrams, Attorney General of the State of New York, amicus
curiae.
SIMONS, J.:
Petitioner, an unwed father, seeks to vacate a final order approving
the adoption of his son. He contends that the mother or the State had
a duty to ensure he knew of the birth and that their failure to do so
denied him his constitutional rights. Inasmuch as petitioner failed to
take any steps to discover the pregnancy or the birth of the child
before first asserting his parental interest 10 months after the
adoption became final, we conclude he was neither entitled to notice
nor was his consent to the adoption required. We, therefore, affirm.
I
The courts below found the following facts.
In December 1987, petitioner Robert O. and Carol A. became engaged and
petitioner moved into Carol's home. Disagreements arose, however, and
in February 1988, petitioner moved out and terminated all contact with
Carol. At that time Carol was pregnant but she did not tell
petitioner, apparently because she believed he would feel she was
trying to coerce him into marriage. Over the next few weeks, Carol
approached her friends, respondents Russell K. and his wife Joanne K.,
and procured their agreement to adopt her child. On October 1, 1988,
Carol gave birth to a boy, who was delivered to respondents upon her
discharge from the hospital. Carol later executed a judicial consent
and, in May 1989, the adoption was finalized.
SNIPPETS:
Donald E. Grossfield, for Appellant.
Frederick J. Magovern, for Respondents.
John Francis Phelan, law guardian.
Robert Abrams, Attorney General of the State of New York, amicus curiae.
Petitioner, an unwed father, seeks to vacate a final order approving the adoption of his son.
He contends that the mother or the State had a duty to ensure he knew of the birth and that
Inasmuch as petitioner failed to take any steps to discover the pregnancy or the birth of the
She did sign a statement indicating, accurately, that there was no one entitled to notice of
The courts below found that there was no deception or concealment, and inasmuch as these
He maintains that before an adoption is finalized, the courts must be required to resolve the
The Supreme Court, beginning with Stanley v Illinois, has recognized that some unwed fathers,
Only if the unwed father "grasps the opportunity" to form a relationship with his child will
We subsequently followed this reasoning to hold that the unwed father of a newborn infant has
Petitioner asks us to extend Raquel Marie's protection to him -- i.e., to find that the
In Lehr, a New York unwed father who had not been actively involved in his child's life
His failure to meet the statutory requirements promptly was due not to his own failings but
In his rendering of the events, as soon as he became aware of the child's existence, he
Petitioner correctly reads Lehr and Raquel Marie to stand for the proposition that an unwed
States have a legitimate concern for prompt and certain adoption procedures and their
While conceding that it is an interest arising exclusively from the father's biological
I agree that due process does not require the unraveling of a 10-month-old adoption at the
|
