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

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 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
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
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

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
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. 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
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 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. 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
Showing 1-10 of 2,611 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