Matter of Seasia D., 10 N.Y.3d 879 (2008)

An unwed biological father must promptly assert his interest in a child and manifest his ability and willingness to assume custody during the six months prior to the child’s placement for adoption to require his consent.

Summary

In a contested adoption proceeding, the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a biological father’s consent was required for the adoption of his child born out of wedlock. The court held that the biological father, who learned of the pregnancy but failed to take substantial steps to demonstrate his commitment to the child during the six months prior to placement, did not meet the criteria for requiring his consent. The court also found insufficient evidence to support the determination that the birth mother’s surrender was invalid, reversing the lower court’s decision and remitting the case for further adoption proceedings.

Facts

Seasia was born out of wedlock on April 1, 2004, to a 14-year-old mother. Mr. and Mrs. Anonymous filed a petition to adopt Seasia. The biological father, who was 17 at the time of Seasia’s birth, intervened in the adoption proceeding, claiming his consent was required. The birth mother had surrendered Seasia. The biological father was notified of the pregnancy in November 2003.

Procedural History

Family Court initially found the birth mother’s surrender invalid and determined the biological father’s consent was required. The Appellate Division affirmed. Mr. and Mrs. Anonymous appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether there was legally sufficient evidence to support the finding that the birth mother’s extrajudicial surrender of the child was invalid.

2. Whether the biological father met the criteria for his consent to be required for the adoption to proceed.

Holding

1. No, because the birth mother never claimed duress, did not ask the court to void her consent, and consistently supported the adoption.

2. No, because the biological father failed to manifest his ability and willingness to assume custody during the six months prior to the child’s placement, as required by Domestic Relations Law § 111 and Matter of Raquel Marie X.

Court’s Reasoning

The court found no support for the claim the birth mother surrendered Seasia under duress, emphasizing her continued support for the adoption. Regarding the biological father’s consent, the court relied on Matter of Raquel Marie X., 76 N.Y.2d 387 (1990), which dictates that an unwed father must promptly assert his interest and manifest his ability and willingness to assume custody in the six months before placement. The court stated, “[t]he . . . judicial evaluation of the unwed father’s conduct in this key period may include such considerations as his public acknowledgment of paternity, payment of pregnancy and birth expenses, steps taken to establish legal responsibility for the child, and other factors evincing a commitment to the child.” The court found the biological father failed to meet these criteria, citing his lack of public acknowledgment, financial support, or legal action to establish responsibility. The court dismissed his excuses, such as the birth mother’s family’s hostility and his relocation, as insufficient justification for his inaction. Even considering actions of the biological father’s family, the court deemed them insubstantial in demonstrating the father’s commitment. Therefore, the biological father’s consent was not required, and the adoption could proceed.