Opinion
May 28, 1996
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Segal, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The adoptive father sought to vacate an order of adoption on the basis of fraud. The application to vacate the order was brought almost four years after the order was made, and was brought while a contested matrimonial action was pending between the adoptive father and the mother of the child. The Family Court denied the application, inter alia, on the ground that there was no fraud perpetrated on the court. We agree.
"[I]n any adoption proceeding, the prime consideration is always the best interest of the child" ( Matter of O'Rourke v Kirby, 54 N.Y.2d 8, 15). To foster stability and permanency in the lives of the children affected by adoption, final orders should not be lightly set aside ( see, McGaffin v. Family Children's Servs., 6 Misc.2d 776, affd 7 A.D.2d 769).
"`[T]he fraud which will suffice to vacate an order or judgment must be fraud in the very means by which the judgment was procured'" ( Matter of Martz, 102 Misc.2d 102, 114, quoting Matter of Anonymous, 29 Misc.2d 580, 582; see also, Domestic Relations Law § 114; Matter of Brundage, 134 N.Y.S.2d 703, 710, affd 285 App. Div. 1185; Matter of Natural Parents of "Nicky" v Dumpson, 81 Misc.2d 132, 141-143). The failure to disclose information regarding a child's putative father to the adoptive parent does not constitute such fraud ( see, Matter of Martz, supra, at 114). Nor does the "natural mother [have an] obligation to admit paternity or to volunteer any information with respect to [the putative father]" ( Matter of Jessica XX, 54 N.Y.2d 417, 427, affd sub nom. Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248).
We also find that under the facts of this case, to sever the relationship between the child and adoptive father would not be in the best interest of the child. Ritter, J.P., Thompson, Hart and McGinity, JJ., concur.