Matter of Amy SS, 64 N.Y.2d 788 (1985)
Domestic Relations Law § 111 (2)(a) allows for dispensing with a parent’s consent to adoption upon clear and convincing evidence of the parent’s intent to forego parental rights and obligations, even if there is a mere “flicker of interest”.
Summary
This case concerns the adoption of Amy SS and whether the biological father’s consent was required. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, finding that the father’s failure to visit, communicate with, or support his child constituted clear and convincing evidence of an intent to abandon his parental rights. The court emphasized that the amendments to Domestic Relations Law § 111 were designed to ease the burden of proving abandonment and to override the “flicker of interest” test, thus facilitating adoptions where parents demonstrate a lack of sustained parental responsibility.
Facts
Amy SS was the subject of an adoption proceeding. The petitioners sought to dispense with the consent of the biological father, the respondent, based on his alleged abandonment of the child. Evidence was presented demonstrating the respondent’s failure to consistently visit, communicate with, or provide financial support for Amy. The respondent attempted to show some level of interest in the child’s life, but the petitioners argued this was insufficient to overcome the evidence of abandonment.
Procedural History
The Family Court initially ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that the respondent had abandoned Amy SS and his consent to the adoption was not required. The Appellate Division reversed, presumably applying a stricter interpretation of the abandonment standard. The New York Court of Appeals then reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Family Court’s decision and granting the motion to dispense with the respondent’s consent.
Issue(s)
Whether the evidence presented by the petitioners constitutes clear and convincing evidence of the respondent’s intent to forego his parental rights and obligations, thereby justifying dispensing with his consent to the adoption of Amy SS under Domestic Relations Law § 111 (2)(a).
Holding
Yes, because the evidence of the respondent’s failure to visit, communicate with, or provide for the support of his child constitutes the type of clear and convincing evidence contemplated by Domestic Relations Law § 111 (2)(a) to show an intent to forego parental rights and obligations.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on Domestic Relations Law § 111 (2)(a), which allows dispensing with a parent’s consent to adoption if there is clear and convincing evidence of abandonment. The court found that the respondent’s actions, or lack thereof, demonstrated an intent to forego his parental rights and obligations. The court explicitly stated that the evidence presented by the petitioners “is precisely the type of clear and convincing evidence contemplated by Domestic Relations Law § 111 (2) (a) to show an ‘intent to forego * * * parental * * * rights and obligations’”.
The court further clarified that the 1975 amendments to section 111 were designed to override the “flicker of interest” test, referencing Matter of Corey L v Martin L, 45 NY2d 383, 389. The court quoted, “the [1975] amendments to section 111 of the Domestic Relations Law were designed to override the ‘flicker of interest’ test and thereby ease the burden on the party seeking to prove abandonment”. This indicates a legislative intent to prioritize the child’s welfare and facilitate adoptions where a parent has demonstrably failed to fulfill their parental responsibilities, even if they express some minimal level of interest.
The dissent in the Appellate Division, which the Court of Appeals aligned with, likely focused on the sufficiency of the evidence presented to demonstrate abandonment, given that such decisions are heavily fact-dependent. The Court of Appeals, in reversing, emphasized the importance of the statutory language and the intent behind the amendments to the Domestic Relations Law in easing the burden of proving abandonment.