 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT APPELLANT CHILD BABY RESPONDENT MATTER PROCEEDING APPELLATE DIVISION AGREEMENT JOINT ADOPTION STATUTORY CONSENT DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW ADOPTIVE PARENT SPOUSE EXAMINATION APPELLATE DIVISION GRANTING STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS SEPARATION AD2D UNITED STATES UNWILLING NY2D MAJORITY SLIP OPN APPEARANCE RESPONSIBILITIES EQUITABLE RELIEF YORK REPORTS ACCORDANCE |
IN THE MATTER OF BABY BOY C. AND BABY GIRL O.,
84 N.Y.2d 91 (1994).
June 14, 1994
1
No. 84 (1994 NY Int. 100)
Decided June 14, 1994
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
LEVINE, J.:
On this appeal, we review an order of the Appellate Division granting
joint adoption of two children by a married couple despite the refusal
of one of the spouses to appear for examination before the Surrogate's
Court in accordance with statutory requirements and his attempt to
withdraw from the proceeding and revoke his agreement and consent to
the adoption.
Appellant and respondent are husband and wife. They initially married
in 1969, divorced shortly thereafter but continued for a time to live
together. A child was born of this union in 1972. A period of physical
separation followed. After appellant suffered a debilitating stroke in
1983, the couple reconciled and then entered into a second marriage in
August of that year. At the time of their remarriage, appellant was 72
years old and respondent was 40. Concededly, appellant is a highly
successful entrepreneur and has amassed a considerable fortune.
Over the ensuing years appellant and respondent made various joint and
individual efforts to find a child for them to adopt. In early 1988,
respondent was able to obtain Baby Boy C, an abandoned child, from a
child care agency in the Philippines. In order to facilitate Baby Boy
C's immigration to the United States, appellant executed a petition to
the United States Department of Justice to classify the child as an
immediate relative, in which appellant certified that he would "care
for the beneficiary of this petition properly if the beneficiary is
admitted to the United States".
During the same time frame that the parties were obtaining custody of
Baby Boy C, respondent was put in contact with a pregnant woman in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania who wished to place her baby for adoption
at birth. The woman gave birth to Baby Girl O in May 1988, appellant
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
