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 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 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
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 Anonymous

This case concerns an adoption proceeding in Nassau County for a neurologically handicapped child. The petitioners, an approved adoptive family, sought to finalize the adoption. Former foster parents, the intervenors, challenged this, claiming a statutory preference for adoption due to their long-term care of the child. The court found that the intervenors had previously declined to adopt the child and failed to take affirmative steps to gain statutory preference while the child was in their care. The decision emphasized that intervention rights apply to current foster parents in custody disputes, and ultimately, the court prioritized the child's best interests by granting the petitioners' adoption application.

AdoptionFoster CareChild WelfareNeurological HandicapBest Interests of ChildInterventionStatutory PreferenceSocial Services LawAgency Discretion
References
3
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. E2001-00055-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2001

K.S.O.H. v. J.W.B., Jr. In Re: Adoption of a Male Child

Mother and Stepfather filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the biological father, alleging abandonment. The Juvenile Court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioners failed to establish abandonment by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was not in the child's best interests. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Juvenile Court's decision, emphasizing that the petitioners did not prove a willful failure to visit or support, particularly given evidence that the mother had thwarted the father's attempts to see the child. The appellate court applied prior statutory law for the definition of 'abandonment' as the current statute had been found unconstitutional in part.

Parental rights terminationAdoptionChild abandonmentJuvenile court appealAppellate reviewClear and convincing evidenceChild supportVisitation rightsCredibility assessmentBest interests of the child
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Adoption of Anonymous (G.)

The case involves adoptive parents seeking court approval for a private-placement adoption of a one-year-old child from an unwed out-of-state mother. The child has been with the petitioners since eight days old. The natural mother provided irrevocable consent, and the New York City Department of Social Services recommended the adoption. The court considered dispensing with the natural mother's personal appearance but decided not to insist on it in this specific case due to the child's established placement and to avoid disservice to the infant. The decision establishes new rules for future private-placement adoptions, requiring detailed statements under oath from attorneys and adoptive parents regarding compensation and placement circumstances, to prevent adoptions driven by monetary considerations. The matter is calendared for further testimony.

AdoptionPrivate-Placement AdoptionParental RightsNatural MotherAdoptive ParentsBest Interest of ChildDomestic Relations LawSocial Services LawAttorney ConductEthical Guidelines
References
7
Case No. W2004-01225-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2005

In Re: Adoption of AMH, a minor Jerry L. Baker and wife, Louise K. Baker v. Shao-Qiang (Jack) He and wife, Qin (Casey) Luo

This appellate case concerns the termination of parental rights for Chinese immigrant biological parents (the Hes) to their minor child, A.M.H. The Hes, facing financial difficulties and immigration issues, initially placed A.M.H. with foster parents (the Bakers), eventually agreeing to a juvenile court order transferring custody and guardianship. Despite continued visits, the Hes paid no child support. After a confrontation and cessation of visits, the Bakers petitioned for adoption and termination of parental rights due to abandonment. The Hes sought to regain custody, citing cultural factors and temporary intent. The Chancery Court terminated the Hes' parental rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of willful failure to visit but reversed the finding of willful failure to support and the application of other termination grounds, while upholding the termination based on abandonment by willful failure to visit and the child's best interest.

Parental Rights TerminationChild Custody DisputeAdoption ProceedingsAbandonment (Child)Willful Failure to VisitWillful Failure to SupportImmigration StatusDue ProcessSuperior Parental Rights DoctrineConsent Order
References
106
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2005

In re Heather P.

This case concerns an appeal by the Law Guardian for a child from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County. The Family Court's order, entered on December 14, 2005, found that it was in the child’s best interest to be adopted by her foster parents and approved a permanency plan of adoption, subsequently freeing the child for adoption. During the permanency hearing, various witnesses testified, including the child's pre-adoptive foster parents and treating psychiatrist. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's determination, concluding that there was no basis in the record to reverse the finding. The Law Guardian's contention regarding procedural errors was also found to be without merit.

Child NeglectFamily CourtAdoptionFoster ParentsBest Interest of the ChildPermanency HearingAppellate ReviewProcedural ErrorsLaw GuardianSuffolk County
References
0
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
Showing 1-10 of 4,245 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