Opinion
2012-07-18
In the Matter of JORDAN T. (Anonymous). Claudia B.T. (Anonymous), appellant; Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent.
Claudia B. T., Riverhead, N.Y., appellant pro se. Dennis M. Cohen, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (James G. Bernet of counsel), for respondent.
Claudia B. T., Riverhead, N.Y., appellant pro se. Dennis M. Cohen, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (James G. Bernet of counsel), for respondent.
In an adoption proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law article 7, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), dated March 28, 2011, which, in effect, denied the petition for adoption and dismissed the proceeding on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
“[A]doption in this State is solely the creature of ... statute, [and] the adoption statute must be strictly construed” (Matter of Jacob, 86 N.Y.2d 651, 657, 636 N.Y.S.2d 716, 660 N.E.2d 397 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Robert Paul P., 63 N.Y.2d 233, 237–238, 481 N.Y.S.2d 652, 471 N.E.2d 424;Matter of Savon, 26 A.D.3d 821, 821–822, 809 N.Y.S.2d 740). Here, since the subject child was in the care and custody of the respondent Suffolk County Department of Social Services (hereinafter DSS) when the appellant commenced the adoption proceeding, the appellant was required to present to the Family Court the consent of DSS to the adoption ( seeDomestic Relations Law §§ 111[1][f]; 112[2][c]; Matter of Savon, 26 A.D.3d at 822, 809 N.Y.S.2d 740;Matter of Ralph, 274 A.D.2d 965, 967, 710 N.Y.S.2d 500). However, the appellant failed to establish that DSS executed the required consent to the adoption petition ( see Matter of Savon, 26 A.D.3d at 821–822, 809 N.Y.S.2d 740;Matter of Ralph, 274 A.D.2d at 967, 710 N.Y.S.2d 500). Thus, the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition ( see Matter of Savon, 26 A.D.3d at 821–822, 809 N.Y.S.2d 740;Matter of Ralph, 274 A.D.2d at 967, 710 N.Y.S.2d 500).
Accordingly, the Family Court properly, in effect, denied the appellant's petition for adoption and dismissed the proceeding on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
The appellant's remaining contention is not properly before this Court.