CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2013

In re the Adoption of a Child Whose First Name is G.

This case addresses whether two close personal friends, KAL and LEL, who are not married or in a romantic relationship but co-parent a child, G., can be her joint legal adoptive parents. KAL initially adopted G. from Ethiopia, and LEL, who jointly planned the adoption and functions as G.'s father, petitioned to become her second legal parent with KAL's consent. The court interpreted "intimate partners" in Domestic Relations Law § 110 broadly, considering legislative intent to expand adoption eligibility and the child's best interests, finding that the shared and intentional parenting relationship between KAL and LEL qualifies as intimate. The decision also affirmed that LEL could adopt as an "adult unmarried person" and that KAL's parental rights would not be terminated under Domestic Relations Law § 117. Ultimately, the court found it was in G.'s best interests to have both KAL and LEL as legal parents, ensuring her security and access to full benefits.

Second-Parent AdoptionUnmarried Partners AdoptionIntimate PartnersNon-Traditional Family StructureCo-ParentingChild's Best InterestsDomestic Relations LawStatutory InterpretationParental RightsAdoption Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Adoption of Baby Boy C.

This case concerns a private adoption proceeding in New York State for a child born in Arizona in 2004. The biological mother is a registered member of the Tohono O’odham Nation, which opposes the adoption and seeks to intervene, arguing the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) applies. The adoptive parents contend ICWA does not apply, citing the 'existing Indian family doctrine' (EIF), which posits ICWA is inapplicable if the Indian parent or child has no significant connection to their tribe. The adoptive parents also filed a motion to disqualify the tribe's attorney. The court denies the motion to disqualify counsel, finding the information shared was not confidential or impactful. The judge adopts the reasoning of Bridget R. regarding the EIF doctrine, finding it necessary for the constitutionality of ICWA, but adjourns the case for a hearing to determine if an Indian family exists, placing the burden of proof on the tribe. The court also clarifies that ICWA can apply to voluntary private adoptions and supersedes Social Services Law § 373 regarding religious placement preferences.

ICWAIndian Child Welfare ActAdoptionExisting Indian Family DoctrineTribal InterventionParental RightsConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionSupremacy Clause
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Adoption of Doe

In a proceeding to vacate an adoption, respondent ERJ moved to close the courtroom during a hearing on Cambodian law, arguing that media exposure regarding her adopted four-year-old son, John Doe, could cause emotional harm. Movant LMB opposed the motion. Justice Kristin Booth Glen denied the application for courtroom closure, emphasizing the strong constitutional and statutory presumption of public trials, which ERJ's speculative claims of harm and a hypothetical expert affidavit failed to overcome. The court further noted the significant public interest in the case, particularly concerning Cambodian adoption certificates and US government policy. While upholding the sealing of adoption-related documents, the court denied sealing the trial transcript and its decisions, affirming the principle of open court records.

Adoption disputeCourt transparencyChild protectionInternational lawParental rightsMedia accessJudicial precedentFamily lawNew York courtsExpert testimony
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Adoption of Baby Boy D.

This case concerns a private-placement adoption of Baby Boy D. where the birth mother sought to include provisions for annual post-adoption visitation and photo exchanges in the final order of adoption, based on a prior agreement with the adoptive parents. The court examined relevant statutes, including Social Services Law § 383-c and Domestic Relations Law §§ 71, 72, and 117 (1) (a), and case law concerning 'open adoptions'. It distinguished the present facts, involving an unconditional consent and an infant without a prior established relationship with the birth mother, from precedents that allowed open adoption terms. The court concluded that Domestic Relations Law § 117 (1) (a) mandates the termination of parental rights, and without an explicit reservation in the surrender instrument as per Social Services Law § 383-c, it lacks the authority to judicially enforce such post-adoption contact. Therefore, the court rejected the proposed modification to the final order of adoption.

Adoption lawOpen adoptionPost-adoption visitationParental rightsDomestic Relations LawSocial Services LawJudicial consentBest interests of the childUnconditional consentPrivate-placement adoption
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2011

In re the Certification as Qualified Adoptive Parents Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 115-d

This case concerns Joanna K. and Scottye K.'s application to waive the mandatory certification as qualified adoptive parents for Jeremiah B., the biological son of Careese B. The K.s received physical custody of Jeremiah shortly after his birth in March 2009, prior to obtaining the required judicial certification, thereby violating New York's adoption statute. The court reviewed the convoluted history, including Careese B.'s judicial consent to adoption and the K.s' temporary custody order. However, the court denied the waiver application, emphasizing the critical importance of pre-placement certification to protect children and prevent unregulated transfers of custody. The decision stated that the petitioners failed to show good cause for waiver and that a retroactive approval of non-compliance would undermine legislative intent, although the K.s retain legal and physical custody pending the adoption petition.

Adoption Law CompliancePrivate-Placement Adoption RequirementsPre-Placement CertificationWaiver Application DenialChild Welfare LegislationFamily Law ProcedureJudicial DiscretionStatutory InterpretationParental Fitness StandardsCustody Transfer
References
9
Case No. 05-17-00423-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2018

Linda Dickens and Dickens Law, LLC v. Jason C. Webster, P.C. D/B/A the Webster Law Firm and Jason Webster

This case concerns a dispute between two lawyers, Linda Dickens and Jason C. Webster, over an alleged contingency fee sharing agreement in a wrongful death case. Webster sought a declaration that the agreement was unenforceable under Texas law, while Dickens counterclaimed for tortious interference and breach of contract, arguing Kansas law should apply. The trial court dismissed Dickens’s tortious interference claim under the TCPA and granted summary judgment to Webster. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal of Dickens's tortious interference claim, finding sufficient evidence, but affirmed that Texas law applies and the fee sharing agreement is unenforceable due to a lack of written client consent as required by Texas Disciplinary Rules. The case is remanded for further proceedings on the tortious interference claim.

Fee Sharing AgreementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens Participation ActCommercial Speech ExemptionChoice of LawProfessional Conduct RulesContingency FeesLegal EthicsSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Female D.

This case involves an appeal by prospective adoptive parents from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County, dated February 4, 1981. The original order had declared a section of the Domestic Relations Law unconstitutional as applied to the natural father, requiring his consent to adoption, vacated the natural mother's consent due to duress, and dismissed the adoption proceeding. The appellate court modified this order, denying the application to vacate the natural mother's consent and declaring the Domestic Relations Law constitutional. The court found overwhelming evidence that the natural mother's consent was freely given, despite her claims of coercion and duress. It also upheld the constitutionality of Domestic Relations Law § 111 (subd 1, par [e]), which sets criteria for requiring an unwed father's preadoption consent, finding it promotes the adoption of illegitimate newborns into stable families. The proceeding was remitted for further action consistent with the appellate decision.

Adoption LawParental RightsUnwed Fathers' RightsConsent to AdoptionDuressCoercionConstitutional LawDomestic Relations LawSurrogate's CourtAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Baby Girl B.

This case involves a private placement adoption proceeding where the biological mother initially consented to the adoption of her child born on May 16, 1988. She later revoked her consent after her parents became aware of the birth. The unwed putative father also did not sign a consent. The biological parents alleged the mother's consent was invalid due to non-compliance with Domestic Relations Law § 115-b and was obtained by fraud and duress. They also claimed improper placement under Social Services Law § 374 (2) and § 371 (12). The court found the consent valid and freely given, and the child's placement compliant with the law, denying the motion to vacate consent and dismiss the adoption petition.

Private Placement AdoptionParental ConsentRevocation of ConsentFraud and DuressChild PlacementSocial Services LawDomestic Relations LawBest Interests of ChildSurrogate CourtNew York Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Adoption of J.

The case concerns an adoption proceeding initiated by a same-sex couple. The court addresses whether to appoint a guardian ad litem for the adoptive infant, a practice previously common in same-sex adoptions due to their novelty. Citing Matter of Dana, which affirmed the legality of same-sex and heterosexual unmarried couple adoptions, the court found no legal basis to treat same-sex adoptions differently from those by married couples, where a guardian ad litem is not automatically appointed if statutory requirements and social worker reports are favorable. The court concluded that denying equal treatment could violate federal and state equal protection clauses, deciding against appointing a guardian ad litem unless special circumstances are present.

AdoptionSame-sex coupleGuardian ad litemBest interest of childEqual protectionDomestic Relations LawStatutory interpretationCourt of AppealsSurrogate's CourtFamily Law
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 18,660 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational