Brief Fact Summary. A 66 year old adult attempted to adopt his 51 year old companion for estate and tax purposes. The Family Court denied the petition because there was no preexisting parent-child relationship.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. There is a general disinclination to examine the motives for adult adoption outside of common sense limitations that are provided for in the Law’s grant of discretion.
Issue. Did the Family Court err as a matter of law in formulating or applying legal principles when it interpreted the Domestic Relations Law to require a preexisting parent-child relationship?
Held. Although the Law confers reasonable discretion on the Family Court’s approval of an adult adoption, the Family Court erred in requiring a preexisting parent-child relationship.
The applicable Law states that if the petition complies with other requirements of the statute and if the person or persons to be adopted appear in court and consent to the adoption, the Family Court may render a decree ordering the issuance of a certificate of adoption to petitioner. The family court sue sponte concluded that the approval of adult adoption was contingent on a preexisting family relationship. However, it is reasonable to assume that the legislature was aware of the omission of this contingency based on other requirements within the Law and the extended length of time the Law has been in effect.
The use of adoptions for the purpose of improving the adoptee’s inheritance rights has been widely recognized, and there is a general disinclination to examine the motives of the petitioner even beyond the area of inheritance rights.
However, the New York Court of Appeals has disallowed an adult marriage when the two adults shared a homosexual relationship based on the theory that adoption is not a quasi-matrimonial device. However, this may fall under the common sense limitations allowed via the reasonable discretion permitted in Law. Such adult adoptions intended to foster a sexual relationship would be against public policy as violative of the incest statute.
If there is no reasonable doubt as to the meaning of the words used, the statute is unambiguous and the Court's role is limited to an application of the literal meaning of the words.View Full Point of Law