From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor O.P., v. Chad J.P

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 21, 2003
303 A.D.2d 1024 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

CAF 02-02761

March 21, 2003.

Appeal from an order of Family Court, Jefferson County (Hunt, J.), entered February 26, 2002, which dispensed with the consent of respondent to the adoption of his son.

OLVER, KORTS, KORONA, RUSSELL PERICAK LLC, PITTSFORD (JOHN G. PERICAK Of Counsel), For Respondent-appellant.

SWARTZ LAW FIRM, P.C., WATERTOWN (SUSAN A. SOVIE Of Counsel), For Petitioners-respondents.

EUGENE J. LANGONE, JR., Law Guardian, WATERTOWN, FOR TAYLOR O.P.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, PINE, GORSKI, AND HAYES, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

Family Court properly dispensed with the consent of respondent to the adoption of his son pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111(2)(a). The evidence established that respondent failed for a period of six months to maintain contact with the child, although able to do so, thereby evincing an intent to forego his parental rights and obligations (see id.). During the period of approximately 11 months preceding the filing of the petition, respondent's only contact with the child consisted of a letter, a card and a gift of $35. "Such insubstantial and infrequent contact is insufficient to preclude a finding of abandonment" (Matter of Amanda, 197 A.D.2d 923, 924, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 662; see § 111 [6] [b]). The court rejected the testimony of respondent that the child's mother thwarted his efforts to contact the child, and we perceive no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determination (see Matter of Shaolin G., 277 A.D.2d 312, 313, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 710; Matter of Ashton, 254 A.D.2d 773, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 817). Finally, we agree with the court that the belated payment of child support arrears, made by respondent upon learning of the impending adoption proceeding, need not "be deemed a substantial communication by [respondent] with the child or person having legal custody of the child" (§ 111 [6] [d]; see Matter of Michael E.J., 84 A.D.2d 816, 817).


Summaries of

Taylor O.P., v. Chad J.P

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 21, 2003
303 A.D.2d 1024 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Taylor O.P., v. Chad J.P

Case Details

Full title:MATTER OF TAYLOR O.P. — CANDIDA M.P. AND PETER C., Petitioners-respondents…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Mar 21, 2003

Citations

303 A.D.2d 1024 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
757 N.Y.S.2d 194

Citing Cases

In re Adrianna

The petitioners filed a petition to adopt the subject child, Adrianna. They alleged that Adrianna had been…

In re Adoption of R.

Nor does the evidence suggest the Father made belated attempts to abide by his support obligations only after…