Narrative Opinion Summary
Order affirmed without costs. Petitioners, Roseanne M. A. and Stephen T. K., an unmarried couple, filed for joint adoption of Roseanne's natural child. The Family Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that New York's Domestic Relations Law § 110 does not authorize adoption by two unmarried persons. Adoption is regulated solely by statute in New York, which requires strict adherence to legislative intent, as established in prior case law (Matter of Robert Paul P., 63 NY2d 233, 237). The statute permits adoption by either an adult unmarried individual or a married couple, but not by two unmarried individuals. Consequently, the Family Court's decision is upheld, with all judges concurring except for Judges Green and Balio, who dissent and advocate for reversal.
Legal Issues Addressed
Adoption by Unmarried Individuals under New York Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that two unmarried individuals cannot jointly adopt a child under New York's Domestic Relations Law § 110, which only allows adoption by an adult unmarried individual or a married couple.
Reasoning: The Family Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that New York's Domestic Relations Law § 110 does not authorize adoption by two unmarried persons.
Judicial Concurrence and Dissentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision to uphold the Family Court's ruling was not unanimous, highlighting a split in judicial opinion regarding the interpretation of adoption laws for unmarried individuals.
Reasoning: Consequently, the Family Court's decision is upheld, with all judges concurring except for Judges Green and Balio, who dissent and advocate for reversal.
Statutory Interpretation in Adoption Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision emphasizes the need for strict adherence to the legislative intent expressed in New York's adoption statutes, as reinforced by precedent.
Reasoning: Adoption is regulated solely by statute in New York, which requires strict adherence to legislative intent, as established in prior case law (Matter of Robert Paul P., 63 NY2d 233, 237).