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
Apr 05, 1999

In re the Adoption of Baby Girl S.

This contested adoption proceeding involves Baby Girl S., whose biological mother, M.S. (13/32 Chickasaw Indian), and non-Native American father, D.R., are central figures. Adoptive parents, Adam and Katherine "Anonymous," initiated the adoption. The Chickasaw Nation sought to transfer the case to tribal court and to intervene, while D.R. moved to dismiss the proceeding. The court determined that the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) did not apply, primarily due to the "existing Indian family doctrine" and M.S.'s objection to tribal intervention. Consequently, the motions to transfer and dismiss were denied. The Chickasaw Nation was allowed to intervene under CPLR, and a preliminary injunction was granted to the adoptive parents to prevent the child's removal from New York jurisdiction.

Adoption LawIndian Child Welfare ActTribal SovereigntyChild CustodyInterventionPreliminary InjunctionFamily LawState Court JurisdictionExisting Indian Family DoctrineParental Consent
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 1968

In re Male Child Wilkov

In a contested adoption proceeding, the natural mother appealed an order from the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated December 17, 1968. The order had concluded that she abandoned her infant child, dismissed her application for the child's return, rejected her objection to the proposed adoption, and directed the court clerk to proceed with the adoption application. The appellate court affirmed the order, despite noting an error by the trial court regarding a social worker's communication. The trial court mistakenly believed the natural mother spoke with a hospital social worker, when in fact, the social worker had only conversed with the child's grandmother. However, the appellate court found that there was ample independent evidence to support the abandonment finding, irrespective of this factual dispute.

Adoption LawChild AbandonmentFamily Court AppealParental RightsSuffolk County Family CourtAppellate AffirmationSocial Worker TestimonyFactual ErrorEvidentiary SupportChild Custody
References
1
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
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
Sep 13, 1984

In re the Adoption of Male L.

This case involves an agency adoption proceeding for a nonmarital child born in 1982. The central issue is the legal sufficiency of the child's surrender by her natural mother, who was only 11 years old at the time of the surrender. The court highlights the critical need for due process in parental rights cases, especially concerning infant parents. It distinguishes between judicial and non-judicial surrenders, emphasizing that surrenders executed out-of-court by an infant, without proper safeguards like a judicial officer or counsel, are constitutionally questionable. The court mandates that the natural mother's surrender be reaffirmed in a judicial proceeding with a guardian ad litem, who has since reported that the mother fully comprehends her decision. A hearing is scheduled to finalize the acceptance of the surrender.

Infant SurrenderParental RightsDue ProcessAdoption LawJudicial SurrenderNon-Judicial SurrenderGuardian ad LitemAge of MajorityConstitutional LawDomestic Relations Law
References
6
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 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 Male D.

The court addressed a motion by petitioning adoptive parents to dispense with the appearance of the child’s natural parents in a private-placement adoption proceeding. The motion was denied due to concerns regarding whether the natural parents' extrajudicial consents were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily given. The court highlighted the absence of independent legal advice for the natural parents and the conflict of interest with the adoptive parents' attorney acknowledging consents. Furthermore, the court found non-compliance with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, as the child was brought from Connecticut to New York without proper approval. The petitioners were directed to obtain the natural parents' testimony and to seek Compact approval forthwith.

Private AdoptionParental ConsentDue ProcessInterstate CompactAdoption LawNew York LawConnecticut ResidentsLegal RepresentationConflict of InterestJudicial Review
References
15
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 Tynetta Q. T.

The case involves former adoptive parents, Emmanuel and Linda, who sought to vacate a January 3, 1991, ex parte order dismissing their adoption proceeding. They returned the child to New York, citing "morally offensive" legal fees for the natural parents' attorney, which they initially refused to pay. The court, without notice, dismissed the adoption, transferred custody to the Department of Social Services (DSS), and referred the matter to Family Court. DSS subsequently placed the child with another family. Petitioners challenged the court's actions, arguing lack of notice and proper procedure. The court denied their motion, affirming its original decision and emphasizing the child's best interests given the irreversible consequences of the petitioners' actions and subsequent delays in seeking judicial relief.

Adoption LawChild CustodyParental RightsJudicial DiscretionProcedural Due ProcessSocial Services LawDomestic Relations LawFamily CourtSurrogate's CourtMotion to Vacate
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 11,693 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