| Matter of Rebecca O. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09779 [46 AD3d 687] |
| December 11, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Rebecca O. Mary O., Respondent; Jane Doe,Appellant; Suffolk County Department of Social Services,Respondent. |
—[*1] Richard M. Gold, Bohemia, N.Y., for petitioner-respondent. Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Michael Heiser of counsel), forrespondent-respondent. Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Diane B. Groom of counsel), Law Guardian.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 383-c to enforce the terms andconditions of a judicial surrender of a child that resulted in the adoption of the child, Jane Doe,the adoptive parent, appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Simeone, J.),dated October 25, 2006, which, after a hearing, granted the petition and directed her to afford thebiological mother four visits per year with the subject child and to allow the biological mother tocommunicate with the subject child via cards, letters, and pictures.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In October 2004, Mary O., the biological mother, executed a judicial surrender instrumentagreeing to relinquish her right to the guardianship and custody of the subject child. Includedwithin the surrender instrument was a reservation clause entitling her to four visits per year withthe subject child, and to communicate with the subject child via cards, letters, and pictures. [*2]Post-surrender, the biological mother's attempts to obtain visitationwith the subject child were thwarted. Approximately six months after the surrender, the subjectchild was adopted by her foster mother, the appellant Jane Doe. Seeking to enforce the terms andconditions of the judicial surrender, the biological mother commenced this proceeding pursuantto Social Services Law § 383-c. After a hearing, the Family Court concluded, inter alia,that continuing visitation and correspondence would be in the subject child's best interests.
In response to the determination of the Court of Appeals in Matter of Gregory B. (74NY2d 77, 90-91 [1989]), the Legislature enacted Social Services Law § 383-c, whichpermits a biological parent to surrender his or her child for adoption yet reserve the right topost-adoption visitation and communication (see Matter of Gerald T., 211 AD2d 17, 20[1995]). That statute, while not conferring an automatic right to visitation, does give thebiological parent standing to petition the court to enforce the surrender instrument (see Matterof Gerald T., 211 AD2d at 21; Matter of Baby Boy D., 177 Misc 2d 636 [1998];Matter of Alexandra C., 157 Misc 2d 262 [1993]). Enforcement of the judicial surrenderrequires that a best interests determination be made.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court's determination that continuedvisitation and correspondence would be in the subject child's best interests is supported by asound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Thomas v Thomas, 35 AD3d 868, 869 [2006]; Matter of McMillian v Rizzo, 31 AD3d555 [2006]; Matter of Corinthian Marie S., 297 AD2d 382 [2002]). Accordingly, wedecline to disturb the determination of the Family Court. Krausman, J.P., Fisher, Angiolillo andBalkin, JJ., concur.