Robert o. V. Russell k.

[chrisrs]

ROBERTO V. RUSSELL K.
604 N.E.2d 99 (1992)

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant father, who was not married to the mother, filed a claim seeking to vacate the final order of adoption of his son by respondent adoptive parents. The father sought reversal of the decision of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (New York), which affirmed an order of the family court denying the petition to vacate.

FACTS: Robert (F) and Carol (M) became engaged and moved in together They did not get along and F moved out and terminated all contact M was pregnant and did not tell F M then approached friends Russell K and his wife and asked them if they wanted to adopt her child The child was bom and M executed a judicial consent and in May 1989, the adoption was finalized M was never asked by the court to identify the father and signed a statement that there was no one entitled to notice or whose consent was required F and M eventually reconciled and got married and nearly 18 months after the birth and 10 months after the adoption, M finally told F about the child F then reimbursed M for her medical expenses and commenced a proceeding to vacate the adoption order Family Court rejected the petition The Appellate court unanimously affirmed The laws of the State did not require notice to F, as he did not fall into those categories listed in the statute
ISSUE: Does the failure to notice a natural unwed unknowing father of the adoption of his child when the mother knows who the father is violate the father's constitutional liberty interest1?

RULE: The failure to notice a natural unwed unknowing father of the adoption of his child when the mother knows who the father does violate the father's constitutional liberty interest

HOLDING & ANALYSIS: The father did not know that his ex-girlfriend was pregnant and had a baby until 10 months after the baby was adopted. The court denied the father's claim that the mother or the State had a duty to ensure he knew of the birth, and that their failure to do so denied him his constitutional rights. The court held that inasmuch as the father failed to take any steps to discover the pregnancy or the birth of the child before first asserting his parental interest 10 months after the adoption became final, he was neither entitled to notice nor was his consent to the adoption required. The court found that there was no concealment or fraud involved. The court held that promptness was measured in terms of the baby's life not by the onset of the father's awareness, and that the demand for promptness was a logical and necessary outgrowth of the state's legitimate interest in the child's need for early permanence and stability. The court held that the father's equal protection claim failed because the existence or nonexistence of a substantial relationship between parent and child was a relevant criterion in evaluating both the rights of the parent and the best interests of the child.