forms judicial consent adoption new york

#Forms judicial consent adoption new york full
#Forms judicial consent adoption new york trial

She then made an entirely new contention, that: as a matter of judicial construction, section 115-b must be found to require the consent form to inform the signer concerning the actual legal consequences of a notice of revocation if 115-b is not interpreted to require a full explanation in the consent form, it is unconstitutional and her due process rights have been violated by use of the deceptive form and the Acting Surrogate’s finding that revocation is not in the best interests of the child.įirst, a Bronx Custody Lawyer said the court did not agree that as matter of statutory construction, section 115-b must be deemed to require all of its relevant provisions to be inserted in the consent form. While the Acting Surrogate recognized that a lay person could easily infer from the language of the form that the consent could be revoked and upon adoption revocation the parties would be restored to a status quo position, it found that the natural mother had not been misled by the form, that she had understood the consequences of her act and that she had been represented by competent counsel, and therefore had not been deprived of due process.Ĭonsequently, a Bronx Family Lawyer said the natural mother appealed the aforesaid decision of the court. Thus, the court denied the natural mother’s application to withdraw her consent, finding that revocation would not serve the best interests of the child.

Although the constitutional question was raised, the transcript contained no claim by the natural mother that she was misled by the consent form. During the hearing, the parties focused on best interests, an issue which consumed nearly all of the almost 500 pages of transcript.

In her memorandum to the trial court, the natural mother urged that section 115-b of the Domestic Relations Law be declared unconstitutional because the language it requires to be inserted in the consent form, if the right to revoke is to be limited, proffers the impression that timely revocation will nullify the consent absolutely, while all it actually directs is a hearing concerning the best interests of the child, at which the natural parent derives no advantage from parenthood. The Acting Surrogate conducted a hearing to determine whether the revocation was in the child’s best interest. However, six days later, the woman or the natural mother filed a notice of revocation of consent which the adoptive parents immediately resisted. The consent form states on its face that it shall become irrevocable 30 days after commencement of the child adoption proceeding unless revoked within that time, pursuant to the Domestic Relations Law.Ī New York Custody Lawyer said on 24 March 1982, the child adoption proceeding was instituted in the Surrogate’s Court of Westchester County. On 20 January 1982, she then signed an extra-judicial consent form for her son’s adoption in order to permit the adoptive parents to take possession of the child. On 11 December 1981, the woman retained a lawyer. On 9 December 1981, the woman gave birth to a son. The woman, who was then residing with her parents and attending college in New York City, planned to leave the city, give birth, turn the child over to the adoptive parents and then return home to her parents, who were unaware of her pregnancy.

A New York Family Lawyer said as a result, preliminary arrangements for the adoption commenced. The doctor, the woman’s obstetrician then contacted an interested young childless couple. A pregnant woman, who was then 20 years of age, unmarried and at her sixth month of pregnancy, sought her obstetrician’s assistance in placing her forthcoming child for adoption.

#Forms judicial consent adoption new york full

#Forms judicial consent adoption new york trial