Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Lesbian Adoption Allowed in New York

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
April 22, 2004

In a case of first impression, a split New York State appellate court reversed a family court's order dismissing the adoption petition filed by a lesbian couple, and approved the adoption of a 5-year-old Cambodian girl. Matter of Adoption of Carolyn B., CAF 03-01032, Appellate Division, 4th Department, March 24, 2004.

Although no one opposed the adoption petition submitted by Nancy Hackett and Sheila Sloan, Family Court Judge Gail A. Donofrio in Rochester dismissed it on the ground that they had not complied with Domestic Relations Law ' 110, which addresses the subject of who may adopt. The statute lists only an unmarried adult, or a husband and his wife. Justice Samuel L. Green, writing for the majority of the appellate court, said there was no question that the law confers standing on either Hackett or Sloan to adopt Carolyn. The sexual orientation of the girl's proposed parents was not significant, he said, because the goal of the statute was to encourage the adoption of as many children as possible. However, the statute “neither expressly prohibits petitioners, as an unmarried couple, from adopting Carolyn jointly … nor expressly permits them to do so.”

Justice Green found the arguments in Matter of Jacob, 86 NY2d 651 (1995) compelling. The majority in Jacob had concluded that DRL ' 110's language did not pose a statutory impediment to second-parent adoptions and that the legislative purpose of promoting the best interests of the child would be advanced “in situations like those presented here by allowing the two adults who actually function as a child's parents to become the child's legal parents.”

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.