Matter of Robert Paul P., 63 N.Y.2d 233 (1984)

Adoption statutes are intended to create a parent-child relationship and cannot be used to formalize a non-marital relationship, whether heterosexual or homosexual, between adults.

Summary

A 57-year-old man petitioned to adopt his 50-year-old male partner, with whom he had a long-term homosexual relationship, for social, financial, and emotional reasons. The Family Court denied the petition, stating the adoption was an attempt to use the law to achieve the benefits of marriage, wills, and contracts. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that adoption laws are designed to create parent-child relationships, not to provide legal status to non-marital relationships. The court reasoned that allowing such adoptions would be a distortion of the law.

Facts

Two adult men, ages 57 and 50, had lived together in a homosexual relationship for over 25 years. They sought to formalize their relationship through adoption, citing concerns about housing, finances, inheritance, and mutual care in case of emergencies. They stated they considered themselves a family and sought legal recognition of their bond.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed for adoption in Family Court. The Family Court denied the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial without opinion. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether the adoption statute permits the adoption of an adult by another adult where the parties are in a homosexual relationship and seek to formalize their relationship for social, financial, and emotional reasons, but lack any parent-child relationship.

Holding

No, because adoption laws are intended to create a parent-child relationship and not to provide legal status to non-marital relationships, regardless of sexual orientation.

Court’s Reasoning

The court emphasized that adoption, as defined in Section 110 of the Domestic Relations Law, creates a parent-child relationship. The court stated, “[i]t is plainly not a quasi-matrimonial vehicle to provide nonmarried partners with a legal imprimatur for their sexual relationship, be it heterosexual or homosexual.” The court highlighted that sexual intimacy is incompatible with the parent-child relationship. While adult adoptions are permitted, the underlying purpose of formalizing a parent-child relationship remains. The court noted that adoption is a statutory creation, unknown at common law, and therefore, its legislative purposes must be strictly observed. The court acknowledged that there are valid reasons for adult adoption, such as perpetuating a family name or formalizing a pre-existing filial relationship. However, in this case, the relationship was inconsistent with a parent-child dynamic. The court concluded that any change to permit such adoptions should come from the legislature, not the courts. The court explicitly rejected interpreting the statute in a way that would lead to an unreasonable result: “[s]uch would be the result if the Domestic Relations Law were interpreted to permit one lover, homosexual or heterosexual, to adopt the other and enjoy the sanction of the law on their feigned union as parent and child.”