In the Matter of The Adoption of Abel.

2 Citing cases

  1. In re H.K.

    217 Cal.App.4th 1422 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 20 times
    Discussing each of these New York cases but distinguishing them because prospective adoptive parent in this case, while biologically related to child, had not lived with child in a “bonded, quasi-family relationship”

    4. The authority cited by H.K. does not give rise to a fundamental right to be placed with a sibling with whom she has no relationship other than biology. In asserting a fundamental right to be placed with a family member, H.K. relies on Stanley v. Illinois (1972) 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 and three cases from the state of New York, In re Adoption of Corey (N.Y.Fam.Ct.1999) 184 Misc.2d 437, 439, 707 N.Y.S.2d 767, Matter of Abel (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2011) 33 Misc.3d 710, 931 N.Y.S.2d 829, In re Adoption of Jonee (N.Y.Fam.Ct.1999) 181 Misc.2d 822, 824, 695 N.Y.S.2d 920. However, these cases do not support her claim.

  2. San Bernardino Cnty. Children & Family Servs. v. A.P. (In re C.P.)

    47 Cal.App.5th 17 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 6 times
    Noting the child's "special health care needs related to autism"

    Grandparents rely primarily on New York authority involving circumstances where the child had long been living with the caretakers as parent and child . In Matter of Abel (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2011) 33 Misc.3d 710, 931 N.Y.S.2d 829, the child had formed an " ‘inseparable bond’ " with maternal relatives who had served as his parents since his birth and who wished to adopt him, but were disqualified from adopting by a conviction from 12 years before the child was born. ( Id. at pp. 711-713, 931 N.Y.S.2d 829.)