Matter of Peter B.

[*1] Matter of Peter B. 2006 NY Slip Op 51404(U) [12 Misc 3d 1184(A)] Decided on July 20, 2006 Sur Ct, Nassau County Riordan, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on July 20, 2006
Sur Ct, Nassau County

In the Matter of Peter B., to Unseal Adoption Records.



45132

John B. Riordan, J.

This is an application by a now-adult adopted child to unseal adoption records, based upon alleged medical necessity. The application is supported by a letter submitted by an internist practicing in the state of New York which reveals that the adopted child suffers from elevated blood pressure and a letter from a psychiatrist practicing in the state of New York which further reveals that the adopted child suffers from depression.

Domestic Relations Law §114 requires that adoption records be sealed. The purpose is to protect and insure confidentiality which is "vital to the adoption process" (Matter of Hayden,

106 Misc 2d 849 [1981]). The confidential nature of the adoption process serves many

purposes - to foster a stable and secure home for the adoptive child, to ensure that the natural parents will be able to start a new life without fear of the past intruding on their ability to do so, to allow the adoptive parents to go on without fear that the natural parents will intrude into their lives, and to shield the adoptive child from possibly disturbing facts regarding her birth or background (Golan v Louise Wise Services, 69 NY2d 343 [1987]; Matter of Walker, 64 NY2d 354 [1985]; Matter of Linda F.M., 52 NY2d 236 [1981]; appeal dismissed 454 US 806 [1981]; Matter of Hayden, 106 Misc 2d 849 [1981]). The statutory sealing requirements have been held

to be constitutional and do not violate the adoptive child's 14th amendment right to equal protection (Matter of Linda F.M., 52 NY2d 236 [1981], appeal dismissed 454 US 806 [1981]; Matter of Romano, 109 Misc 2d 99 [1981]).

Despite the strong policy in favor of confidentiality, the courts and Legislature have recognized that, under certain circumstances, an adoptive child may need information concerning his or her medical background (Matter of Chattman, 57 AD2d 618 [1977]; Juman v Louise Wise Services, 159 Misc 2d 314 [1994], affd 211 AD2d 446 [1995]; Matter of Harrington, NYLJ, Mar. 31, 1993, at 25). Nevertheless, "[a] rule which automatically gave full disclosure to any adopted person confronted with a medical problem with some genetic implications would swallow New York's strong policy against disclosure. . ." (Golan v Louise Wise Services, 69 NY2d 343, 349 [1987]). Thus, the courts and the Legislature have attempted to strike a balance between the conflicting interests of the biological parents to maintain anonymity and the interests of adopted children and their adoptive parents in having access to medical information (Domestic Relations Law §114; see Matter of Marino, 291 AD2d 849 [2002]). The Legislature, recognizing the adoptive child's need for such information, in 1983 enacted Social Services Law §373-a which requires certain information, including information on medical histories, to be provided by the biological parents.

Based upon the same rationale, Domestic Relations Law §114(2) provides that adoption records may be unsealed upon a showing of "good cause." A prima facie case of good cause on medical grounds may be established under Domestic Relations Law §114(4). Domestic Relations Law §114(4) provides as follows: [*2]

"Good cause for disclosure or access to an inspection of sealed adoption records and orders and any index thereof, hereinafter, the adoption records,' under this section may be established on medical grounds as provided herein. Certification from a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of New York that relief under this subdivision is required to address a serious physical or mental illness shall be prima facie evidence of good cause."

The certification must also identify the information required to address such illness. Moreover, in order to maintain the anonymity of the biological parents, Domestic Relations Law §114(4) requires the appointment of a guardian ad litem to review the records or, if the records are insufficient, to contact the biological parent.

Here, the letter of the adopted child's internist simply recites that the adopted child suffers from elevated blood pressure and hypertension for which he takes several medications. Similarly, the letter of the adopted child's psychiatrist states that the adopted child suffers from depression and is currently seen for "medication management" and by another therapist for "out-patient therapy". Neither letter indicates how the medical records of the applicant's biological parents may be helpful in treating the applicant's condition. Accordingly, the letters do not meet the specific criteria set forth in Domestic Relations Law §114(4), and, therefore, prima facie good cause has not been established.

Although an applicant fails to provide the type of certification to establish prima facie "good cause" under Domestic Relations Law §114(4), he may establish good cause under Domestic Relations Law §114(2) (see Matter of Rubin, NYLJ, Mar. 26, 1999, at 31). The court finds that the letters of the physicians are likewise insufficient to establish good cause under Domestic Relations Law §114(2). Moreover, Domestic Relations Law §114(2) requires that notice be given to the adoptive parents. The adopted child has not indicated whether the adopted parents are alive and consent to the application or are deceased.

The adopted child may resubmit his application to comply with Domestic Relations Law §114. If a further application is filed, the adopted child shall furnish the court with the consents of the adoptive parents or, as the case may be, a death certificate for a deceased adoptive parent.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated: July 20, 2006John B. Riordan

Judge of the Surrogate's Court

The appearance of counsel is as follows: Pro se