Matter of Kevin

[*1] Matter of Kevin 2016 NY Slip Op 51104(U) Decided on July 19, 2016 Family Court, Queens County Hunt, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 19, 2016
Family Court, Queens County

In the Matter of the Adoption of a Child Whose First Name is Kevin, Pursuant to Article 7, Title II of the Domestic Relations Law and Article 6, Part 2 of the Family Court Act.



A-12627/04
John M. Hunt, J.

Kevin E. who was the adoptee in this agency adoption proceeding has made application for disclosure, access, or inspection of the record of his adoption proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law §114. Specifically, Mr. E. requests that the Court unseal the record of the adoption in order to provide him with a copy of his original birth certificate. According to Mr. E, "[f]or the past ten years I have had an ongoing relationship with my biological mother [G.E.]. I honestly just want a copy of my birth certificate for my file."[FN1]

The relevant rules for the Family Court and the Surrogate's Court require that a copy of the adoptee's original birth certificate be filed with the adoption court (22 NYCRR §205.53 [b][1]; 22 NYCRR §207.55 [b] [1]), and this Court's sealed adoption file does contain a copy of Mr. E.'s original birth certificate.[FN2]

Although Mr. E. is aware of his personal history based upon his statement in support of [*2]his application to unseal the adoption records, as well as by the fact that he was over fourteen years of age at the time of his adoption and his consent to the adoption was required (see

Domestic Relations Law §111 [1] [a]), the Court is constrained to deny Mr. E.'s request for a copy of his original birth certificate.[FN3]

The governing statute, Domestic Relations Law §114, provides in pertinent part, as follows:

Such order and all the papers in the proceeding shall be filed in the office of the court granting the adoption and the order shall be entered in books which shall be kept under seal . . . [s]uch order, including orders heretofore entered, shall be subject to inspection and examination only as hereinafter provided * * *The written report of the investigation together with all other papers pertaining to the adoption shall be kept by the judge or surrogate as a permanent record of his court and such papers must be sealed by him and withheld from inspection (Domestic Relations Law §114 [1]).

No person, including the attorney for the adoptive parents, shall disclose the surname of the child directly or indirectly to the adoptive parents, except upon order of the court. No person shall be allowed access to such sealed records and order and any index thereof except upon an order of a judge or a surrogate of the court in which the order was made or of a justice of the supreme court. No order for disclosure or access and inspection shall be granted except upon good cause shown and on due notice to the adoptive parents and to such additional persons as the court may direct (Domestic Relations Law §114 [2]).

Good cause for disclosure or access to and 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. Such certification shall identify the information required to address such illness * * * (Domestic Relations Law §114 [4]).

New York law provides that adoption records are confidential and they are required to be sealed and withheld from inspection once an adoption has been concluded (Matter of Linda F.M., 52 NY2d 236, 238-239 [1981], app dismissed 454 US 806 [1981]; Matter of Walker, 64 NY2d

354, 360 [1985]; Matter of Best, 66 NY2d 151, 155 [1985], cert denied 475 US 1083 [1986]; Golan v. Louise Wise Services, 69 NY2d 343, 346 [1987]; Alma Society, Inc. v. Mellon, 601 F2d 1225, 1235 [2nd Cir 1979], cert denied 444 US 995 [1995]).

The confidentiality provisions relating to adoption records furthers important public [*3]policy. "New York Domestic Relations Law §114 and its related statutes represent a considered legislative judgment that the confidentiality statutes promote the social policy underlying adoption laws" (Alma Society, Inc., 601 F2d at 1235). The statute "shields the adopted child from possibly disturbing facts surrounding his or her birth and parentage. It permits the adoptive parents to develop a close relationship with the child free from interference or distraction, and it provides the natural parents with an anonymity that they may consider vital. The State's interest in fostering an orderly and supervised system of adoptions is closely tied to these interests of the parties involved" (Linda F.M., 52 NY2d at 239 [citation omitted]; see also Walker, 64 NY2d at 361; Golan, 69 NY2d at 346-347).

While an individual may request access and disclosure to sealed adoption records "on medical grounds [in order to] address a serious physical or mental illness" (Domestic Relations Law §114 [4]; see Matter of Wilson, 153 AD2d 748, 749 [1989]; Matter of Craig J.S.J., 309 AD2d 1284 [2003]; Matter of Nan FF., 63 AD3d 1213, 1214 [2009]; Matter of Timothy AA., 72 AD3d 1390, 1391 [2010]), "[i]n the absence of such immediate medical need, petitioner [is] required to show good cause for the information sought" (Matter of Marino, 291 AD2d 849, 850 [2002]; see also Matter of Wilson, 153 AD2d 748, 749 [1989]; Matter of Michael Z., 38 AD3d 912 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 814 [2007]; Matter of Robert, 137 AD3d 431 [2016]; Matter of Zalkind T., ___ AD3d ___, 2016 NY Slip Op 05245).

In those instances where an individual seeks disclosure based upon medical need, the statute provides guidance concerning what constitutes evidence of good cause (Domestic Relations Law §114 [4]). In any other instance where access and disclosure is sought, the statute does not delineate what constitutes "good cause", a term which "[b]y its very nature . . . admits of no universal, black-letter definition" (Matter of Linda F.M., 52 NY2d at 240). Thus, in cases where disclosure is requested for other then medical need, courts must decide whether good cause for disclosure has been established on a case-by-case basis (id.; see also Application of Maples, 563 SW2d 760, 766 [Mo Sup Ct 1978]; In re Roger B., 84 Ill2d 323, 326-327, 418 NE2d 751, 752-753 [Sup Ct 1981]; In re Adoption of S.J.D., 641 NW2d 794, 799-800 [Iowa Sup Ct 2002]; In re Philip S., 881 A2d 931, 933-934 [RI Sup Ct 2005]; Belden v. Cabinet for Families and Children, ___ SW3d ___, 2016 WL 1534638 at *3 [Ky Ct App 2016]).

"[A]n adoptee's curiosity or desire to learn more about his or her ancestry does not constitute good cause' for disclosing the identity of his or her natural parents" (Wilson, 153 AD2d at 749; see also Alma Society, Inc., 601 F2d at 1229). Moreover, Mr. E.'s desire to have a copy of his original birth certificate "for my file" is insufficient as a matter of law to constitute good cause under the statute (Matter of Donald W., 225 AD2d 701 [1996]). Consequently, in the absence of a prima facie showing of good cause to order disclosure of the adoption records, there is no basis for the Court to conduct a hearing (Golan, 69 NY2d at 347), and the application may be summarily denied (Donald W., 225 AD2d at 701; Michael Z., 38 AD3d at 912-913; Nan FF., 63 AD3d at 1214).[FN4]

There have been recent developments in the area of adoption law such as provisions which allow for the restoration of parental rights to older children which were previously terminated through judicial proceedings (Fam. Ct. Act §635-§637), and authorization for judicial approval of post-adoption contact between a biological parent and a child who has been adopted by another (Domestic Relations Law §112-b; Matter of Siearra L., 130 AD3d 1184, 1185-1186 [2015]).

These provisions seem to signal a trend towards more openness in the area of adoption, yet the Legislature has not modified Domestic Relations Law §114. While this Court perceives no harm which might occur were it to provide Mr. E. with a copy of his original birth certificate, the Court cannot substitute its subjective judgment or redraft or interpret the statute differently than what was intended when the statute was enacted "solely to reflect current values or lifestyles" (Matter of Hayden, 106 Misc 2d 849, 851 [1981]; In re R.D., 876 NW2d 786, 799 [Iowa Sup Ct 2016]; In re S.J.D., 641 NW2d at 801).

Perhaps the time has come to revisit the secrecy which attaches to adoption records and to review the instances where secrecy is necessary and appropriate. However, if there is to be any modification of the law concerning adoption records, it must originate with the Legislature which is the appropriate branch to consider and resolve the competing policy considerations at issue (see Hernandez v. Robles, 7 NY3d 338, 366 [2006]; Debra H. v. Janice R., 14 NY3d 576, 596-597 [2010]).

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the application to unseal the adoption record is denied for the reasons stated herein.

E N T E R:

________________________________

JOHN M. HUNT

Judge of the Family Court

Dated: Jamaica, New York

July 19, 2016

Footnotes

Footnote 1:Upon the granting of the adoption of Mr. E. by his foster mother in 2004, the Clerk sent notification of the adoption to the New York State Commissioner of Health as required by Judiciary Law §254. Based upon the notice, a new birth certificate was issued for the adopted child (Public Health Law §4138 [1] [c]; NYC Admin Code §17-167 [a] [3]; 24 RCNY [Health Code] §207.05 [a] [3]; see Barry E. v. Ingraham, 43 NY2d 87, 91-92 [1977]), and the original birth certificate became confidential and sealed from disclosure, except upon the order of a court of competent jurisdiction (Public Health Law §4138 [3] [b]; NYC Admin Code §17-167 [c]; 24 RCNY §207.05 [b]).

Footnote 2:Mr. E.'s original birth certificate contains no identifying information relating to his biological father (see Public Health Law §§4132 [content of birth certificate]; 4135 [2] [putative father of child born out-of-wedlock]).

Footnote 3:There is no affidavit from Mr. E.'s biological mother confirming his claims regarding their relationship. However, even were such an affidavit presented, and even if the biological mother consented to the release of the original birth certificate, this would not affect the Court's ruling because "[a] crucial aspect of the scheme of Domestic Relations Law §114 is to leave the balancing of the interests of the natural parents, the adoptive parents, the adopted child, and society to the court system, and not to private parties. Parties may not circumvent the statutory scheme with their own private agreements" (O'Hearn v. Spence-Chapin Services to Families and Children, Inc., 929 Fsupp 136, 141 [SDNY 1996] [citation omitted]).

Footnote 4:Under such circumstances, it was unnecessary to direct service of the application upon the biological parent either directly or through a guardian ad litem appointed by the Court to protect the interests of the biological parent (see Domestic Relations Law §114 [2]; Marino, 291 AD2d 849, 850 [2002]; Craig J.S.J., 309 AD2d 1284 [2003]; Timothy AA., 72 AD3d at 1390-1391; cf. Adoption of Robert, 137 AD3d at 431-432 [prima facie showing of good cause required notice to adoptee's living relatives and Health Department as well as hearing]).