Matter of Margaret O.O.K.
Annotate this CaseDecided on May 27, 2015
Surrogate's Court, Nassau County
In the Matter of the Application of Margaret O.O.K., to unseal adoption records.
11428
Jaspan Schlesinger LLP(for Petitioner)
300 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
Edward W. McCarty III, J.
Before the court is an order to show cause in support of the application of an adult who seeks to unseal adoption records on the basis of alleged good cause, as set forth below, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law (DRL) 114. In the alternative, petitioner asks the court to send her original birth certificate to the Irish Consulate in New York City, or to order the New York State Office of Vital Records, or the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Vital Records, to supply the court with a new original birth certificate which the court will then transmit to the Irish Consulate in New York City, without petitioner having any access to the birth certificate, and which birth certificate may subsequently be destroyed by the Irish Consulate or returned to the court.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner was born in New York City in 1961 and adopted in Nassau County at the age of 16 months. Petitioner's application is supported by the affidavit of her adoptive mother, who consents to the unsealing of the adoption records. Petitioner's adoptive father is deceased, and a copy of his death certificate is annexed. Petitioner knows the identity of her biological mother, and asks the court to dispense with notice to her. Petitioner's biological father is unknown. Petitioner has also submitted a copy of her original order of adoption and a copy of her post-adoption birth certificate, which reflects the names of her adoptive parents.
This application was brought for the limited purpose of obtaining petitioner's original pre-adoption birth certificate in order to establish her Irish lineage. Petitioner states that her biological mother is an Irish citizen, by virtue of having been born in the Republic of Ireland. Since petitioner was born to an Irish citizen, petitioner has a legal right to citizenship in Ireland. Petitioner avers that Irish citizenship would enable petitioner, as well as her children, to live and [*2]work in Ireland and in the European Union without visa restrictions.
In order to accomplish this, petitioner must present an original birth certificate to the Republic of Ireland at the Irish Consulate in New York City. Accordingly, she asks the court to unseal her records, or send the original birth certificate directly to the consulate, or issue a court order directing the New York State Office of Vital Records, or the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Vital Records, to send a copy of the original birth certificate to the court for forwarding to the consulate, which would avoid giving access to petitioner of a document contained in a sealed adoption file, while still allowing a process that would prove petitioner's Irish lineage and qualify her and her children for Irish citizenship. Petitioner states that she will pay any required fees incurred in any of these alternative processes.
Counsel for petitioner has submitted a comprehensive and thorough affirmation and brief in support of his client's application. He advises the court that petitioner's original birth certificate will establish her birthright as a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. Counsel argues that the parental notice requirements contained in DRL 114 (2) are made moot by the death of petitioner's adoptive father and the consent of her adoptive mother. In addition, counsel notes that DRL 114 (2) does not mandate that notice of the petition be provided to a petitioner's biological mother, and counsel requests that the court dispense with notice to her. He also notes that it is unlikely that the birth certificate contains the name of the biological father, since the surname used for the child on the birth certificate was that of her biological mother. Because the name of the biological father is not pertinent to petitioner's interest in establishing Irish citizenship, counsel volunteers that in the unlikely event that the name of petitioner's biological father is found on the original birth certificate, it may be redacted.
ANALYSIS
In New York State, the sealing of adoption records has been mandated for more than 60 years, although courts had the discretionary power to seal these records even before then (Matter of Linda F.M., 52 NY2d 236, 239 [1981]; appeal dismissed 454 US 806 [1981]). Currently, adoption records are sealed pursuant to DRL 114, to protect and insure confidentiality which is "vital to the adoption process" (Matter of Hayden, 106 Misc 2d 849 [1981]). As expressed by the Court of Appeals, the purpose is to provide anonymity to the natural parents, enable the adoptive parents to form a close bond with their adopted child, protect the adopted child from possibly disturbing information that might be found in his records, and allow the state to foster an orderly and supervised adoption system (Matter of Linda F.M., 52 NY2d 236, 239 [1981]; appeal dismissed 454 US 806 [1981] [internal citations omitted]). There have been challenges to the power of New York State to seal adoption records, but the courts have determined that these statutes are not in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and are constitutional (Matter of Linda F.M., 52 NY2d 236 [1981]; appeal dismissed 454 US 806 [1981]; Matter of Romano, 109 Misc 2d 99 [1981]).
At the same time, the courts and the legislature have recognized that circumstances may exist in which it is vital that an adopted child be provided with information regarding his background (Matter of Peter B., 12 Misc 3d 1184A [Sur Ct, Nassau County 2006]). When serious health issues arise, an adopted child or his adoptive parents may seek the medical history of the child's biological family pursuant to DRL 114(4). This statute permits interested parties seeking medical information to establish a prima facie case of good cause (see e.g. Matter of [*3]Peter B., 12 Misc 3d 1184A [Sur Ct, Nassau County 2006]). It is also possible to petition the court for access to adoption records for other reasons pursuant to DRL 114(2). This section provides that adoption records may be unsealed upon a showing of "good cause". It further directs that there must be "due notice to the adoptive parents and to such additional persons as the court may direct." While it is unusual for adoption records to be unsealed for a non-medical reason, "[e]xceptions to the medical requirement are rare but do occur occasionally" (Matter of Lewis, NYLJ, Apr. 20, 2007, at 32, col 1 [Sur Ct, Kings County]). The courts and the legislature have attempted to strike a balance between the state's interest in maintaining sealed adoption records and the sometimes conflicting interests of all parties to an adoption, as further weighed against the justification underlying each particular request to unseal the records (15 Buffalo Journal Public Interest Law 49, 72 [1996]).
In weighing the opposing interests, courts may deny an adoptee's request to unseal his or her adoption record for lack of good cause. In a 2006 decision, the court denied an adoptee's application where it determined that the request was based upon an "adoptee's general curiosity about her ancestry and background" (Matter of Adoption of M.F., NYLJ, Sept. 9, 2006, at 46, col 5 [Sur Ct, Kings County]). Similarly, access to records was denied where petitioner wanted to give his children and grandchildren the opportunity to find out about their father's heritage (Matter of Lewis, NYLJ, Apr. 20, 2007, at 32, col 1 [Sur Ct, Kings County]). "By its very nature, good cause admits of no universal, black-letter definition" (Matter of Linda F.M., 52 NY2d 236, 240 [1981]; appeal dismissed 454 US 806 [1981]).
In cases in which good cause is found to exist, the court may require further steps to protect the parties to the adoption other than petitioner. In an application before this court, petitioner sought to unseal his adoption records for medical reasons, but failed to meet the specific statutory requirements of DRL 114 (4) to establish good cause. The court advised petitioner that if he established good cause pursuant to DRL 114 (2), he would also be required to furnish the court with consents signed by each of his adoptive parents, if they were living, or a death certificate for each deceased adoptive parent. In Matter of Wilson, the court found that petitioner, whose adoptive father was deceased and whose adoptive mother approved his petition, had established good cause to unseal his adoption records, but the court still required a hearing to protect the interests of the biological parents, who may have wished to remain anonymous (Matter of Wilson, 153 AD2d 748 [2nd Dept 1989]).
The facts presented to the court today are somewhat unusual in that there are few competing interests to weigh against petitioner's application. The court has been presented with the petition of an adult applicant who maintains that a substantive benefit will accrue to her and her children if she is able to obtain her original birth certificate, which is contained in her adoption file. As to the interests of her adoptive parents, the court has before it a death certificate for the adoptee's father, and an affidavit of support from the adoptee's mother. The biological father is unknown. The identity of petitioner's biological mother is already known to petitioner, and petitioner has not, and does not plan to, be in contact with her. There is no statutory requirement that petitioner's biological mother must consent to, or be given notice of, petitioner's application. The state's interest in maintaining confidentiality as part of a viable system of adoption is also not a factor in this case, as a review of the birth certificate reveals that there is no identifying information contained in the requested document which petitioner does not already [*4]possess, and petitioner is not requesting unfettered access to the entire adoption file. It is not information which petitioner seeks; it is the original document necessary to acquire Irish citizenship.
"Whether [good cause] exists, and the extent of disclosure that is appropriate, must remain for the courts to decide on the facts of each case" (Matter of Linda F.M., 52 NY2d 236, 240 [1981]; appeal dismissed 454 US 806 [1981]). In a similar case decided by this court in 2009, the court granted the application of an adult adoptee who sought copies of his original pre-adoption birth certificate in order to establish his Hungarian lineage so that he could become a citizen of Hungary. Petitioner's application was supported by the affidavit of his biological mother; his biological father was unknown and his adoptive parents were deceased. In that case, petitioner averred specific substantive benefits he would gain from Hungarian citizenship, and submitted a previously obtained copy of his original order of adoption (Matter of Victor M.I. I., NYLJ, Mar. 30, 2009, at 25, col 1 [Sur Ct, Nassau County]). Under those circumstances, the court directed that petitioner be provided with the copies of his original birth certificate; petitioner was not granted access to inspect the court adoption file.
Under the present circumstances, the court finds that petitioner has demonstrated good cause. The court notes, however, that this ruling is limited to the specific facts underlying the present petition. As noted in Matter of Victor M.I.I. (NYLJ, Mar. 30, 2009, at 25, col 1 [Sur Ct, Nassau County]), the court cannot and will not approve the unsealing of records each time an adult adoptee claims that a benefit would accrue from access to adoption files. In many cases, the assurance of confidentiality afforded by the legislature to both biological and adoptive parents must outweigh the justification underlying an adoptee's request for access.
CONCLUSION
The court will provide petitioner with the original birth certificate contained in her adoption file. Counsel for petitioner is directed to contact the adoption clerk of the Surrogate's Court to make arrangements to pick up the document. The court requests that if possible, the original birth certificate be returned to the court's file after review by the Irish consulate for the purpose of establishing petitioner's Irish citizenship. Petitioner has not requested, nor is she granted, access to the balance of her adoption file at this time.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Dated: May 27, 2015
EDWARD W. McCARTY III
Judge of the
Surrogate's Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
