Maria-Irene D. v. Han Ming T.
| Decision Date | 28 September 2017 |
| Citation | 61 N.Y.S.3d 221,153 A.D.3d 1203 |
| Parties | In re MARIA–IRENE D., Carlos A., Petitioner–Appellant, Marco D., Appellant, v. Han Ming T., Respondent–Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Magovern & Sclafani, Mineola (Frederick J. Magovern of counsel), for appellants.
Rumbold & Seidelman, LLP, Bronxville (Nina E. Rumbold of counsel), for respondent.
TOM, J.P., MAZZARELLI, ANDRIAS, OING, SINGH, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Stewart H. Weinstein, J.), entered on or about March 16, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon effectively granting reargument, adhered to its prior order, entered on or about December 21, 2016, which had granted respondent's motion to vacate petitioner's adoption of the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order entered on or about December 21, 2016, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the order granting reargument.
Appellant Marco D. and respondent Han Ming T. (Ming), both British citizens, entered a civil union in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2008, which they converted into a legal marriage in 2015, effective as of the date of their civil union. In 2013, the couple jointly executed an egg donor and surrogacy agreement with the intention of becoming parents. Both contributed sperm, and ultimately the embryo fertilized by Marco's sperm was transferred to the surrogate. The child, named after both Marco's and Ming's mothers, was born in September 2014. The couple retained counsel, and commenced a proceeding in Missouri to terminate the egg donor and surrogate's parental rights to the child. In October 2014, the Missouri court awarded Marco, as the genetic father, "sole and exclusive custody" of the child. Marco, Ming, and the child returned to Florida, where they lived as a family until October 2015, when Ming returned to the UK to seek employment.
At some point in or after 2013, Marco entered a relationship with petitioner Carlos A., and they moved to New York with the child after Ming went to the UK. In January 2016, Carlos commenced a petition in New York to adopt the child. In the adoption papers, petitioner disclosed that Marco and Ming were married in 2008, but alleged that they had not lived together continuously since 2012 and that Carlos and Marco had been caring for the child since her birth. A home study report stated that Marco and Ming legally separated in 2013 and had no children together. Ming's role in the surrogacy process was not disclosed to Family Court, nor was the Florida divorce action commenced by Ming in March 2016 in which he sought joint custody of the child.
Family Court granted the adoption petition in May 2016. After Ming learned of the adoption, he moved to vacate it, on the ground that relevant facts had not been disclosed to the court and that he was entitled to notice of the adoption and an opportunity to be heard since he had parental rights. Family Court granted Ming's motion, and vacated the adoption pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 114(3), finding that Carlos and Marco (together, appellants) had made material misrepresentations to the court that provided sufficient cause to vacate, and that Ming was entitled to notice of the adoption proceeding. The court left open the possibility that Carlos could pursue adoption of the child, if appropriate, after resolution of the divorce proceedings. Upon Carlos's motion for reargument, the court adhered to its prior determination.
Family Court providently exercised its discretion in vacating the adoption. It is undisputed that Ming and Marco's marriage in the UK was effective as of August 2008. New York courts as a matter of comity will recognize such out-of-state marriages (see e.g. Matter of Mott v. Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 N.Y.2d 289, 292, 434...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Christopher YY. v. Jessica ZZ.
...marital couple or the use of informal artificial insemination by donor (hereinafter AID) (see Matter of Maria–Irene D. [Carlos A.–Han Ming T. ], 153 A.D.3d 1203, 1205, 61 N.Y.S.3d 221 [2017]; Matter of Beth R. v. Ronald S. , 149 A.D.3d 1216, 1217, 51 N.Y.S.3d 244 [2017] ; Matter of Kelly S.......
-
Joseph O. v. Danielle B.
...YY. v. Jessica ZZ., 159 A.D.3d 18, 23–24, 69 N.Y.S.3d 887, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 00495, *5-6 ; Matter of Maria–Irene D. [Carlos A.—Han Ming T.], 153 A.D.3d 1203, 1205, 61 N.Y.S.3d 221 ; Matter of Carl Henry P. v. Tiwiana L., 82 A.D.3d 1245, 1246, 919 N.Y.S.2d 384 ). However, the presumption of......
-
Onorina C.T. v. Ricardo R.E.
...Ct. Act § 417 ; Matter of Christopher YY. v. Jessica ZZ. , 159 A.D.3d at 26–28, 69 N.Y.S.3d 887 ; Matter of Maria–Irene D. [Carlo A. v. Han Ming T.] , 153 A.D.3d 1203, 1205, 61 N.Y.S.3d 221 ; Matter of Carl Henry P. v. Tiwiana L. , 82 A.D.3d 1245, 1246, 919 N.Y.S.2d 384 ). However, this pre......
-
T.H. v. J.R.
...in Dawn M. (see e.g. , Christopher YY v. Jessica ZZ. , 159 A.D.3d 18, 69 N.Y.S.3d 887 [3rd Dept. 2018] ; In re Maria-Irene D. , 153 A.D.3d 1203, 61 N.Y.S.3d 221 [2017] ), the presumption applied in those cases.In Matter of Christopher YY v. Jessica ZZ , cited by Ms. H., the court applied th......