In re the Adoption of Amy SS
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re Joshua II. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- In re Joshua (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Matter of Hayden II. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- In re Zachary N. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- In re Shandra CC. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- In re Jonna H. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- In re the Adoption of Randi Q. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- In re the Adoption of Ashley (New York Surrogate's Court 1990)
- In re Devorah Leah B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- In re Eugene MM. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- Pernice v. Cote (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- In re Peter H. T. (N.Y. 1985)
- In re Lauren D. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- In re the Adoption of Lisa Marie F. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- In re Ian S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- In re Ryan Paul L. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and the motion to dispense with the respondent’s consent to the adoption of Amy SS should be granted, with costs. For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Justice Levine at the Appellate Division, we conclude that the findings at Family Court more nearly comport with the evidence.
In addition, we would note that the evidence put forth by the petitioners of the respondent’s failure to visit with, communicate with, or provide for the support of his child is precisely the type of clear and convincing evidence contemplated by Domestic Relations Law § 111 (2) (a) to show an “intent to forego * * * parental * * * rights and obligations”. While respondent’s evidence may have shown a “flicker of interest” in Amy SS, “the [1975] amendments to section 111 of the Domestic Relations Law were designed to override the ‘flicker of interest’ test and thereby ease the burden on the party seeking to prove abandonment” (Matter of Corey L v Martin L, 45 NY2d 383, 389; see, Domestic Relations Law § 111 [6] [b]).
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye and Alexander concur.
Order reversed, with costs, and the motion to dispense with respondent’s consent to the adoption granted in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.