111 Misc. 2d 320 | N.Y. Fam. Ct. | 1981
OPINION OF THE COURT
This is an application for final approval of a petition by an adult male, age 32, to adopt an adult male, age 43. Shortly after they became acquainted in August, 1978, the adoptive parent gave up his apartment and moved in with the adoptive child. The parties live together in a homosexual life-style. The parents of the adoptive child are deceased. In their relationship the adoptive parent assumed a protective role toward him. One practical benefit of adoption would be to bring the adoptive child in compliance with the standard clause in his apartment lease restricting occupancy to tenant and members of the tenant’s immediate family. However, the underlying motivation for the adoption, as articulated by counsel, is that the parties desire to formalize through this proceeding a bonding and commitment to each other which they openly express. It is urged that adoption may be granted for emotional and symbolic purposes.
The source of the law of adoption can be traced back to the Code of Hammurabi in ancient Babylonia.
Conformably, adoption in New York is “solely the creature of, and regulated by, statute law”. (Matter of Eaton, 305 NY 162, 165.)
Despite the trend of the Legislature to broaden the basis of adoption as evidenced by the afore-mentioned amendment and to loosen the restrictions on adoption as perceived in more recent amendments,
In the instant case, the court is being asked to approve an adoption of an adult by another, younger adult. While there is not statute explicitly barring this kind of age discrepancy,
The court is most sympathetic to the yearning of two decent people living exemplary, productive lives who are seeking to obtain some legal recognition of the bond that exists between them. It is mindful that what consenting adults do sexually in private has been decriminalized on constitutional grounds.
Final approval is denied. The petition is dismissed.
. Matter of Souers (135 Misc 521).
. Carpenter v Buffalo Gen. Elec. Co. (213 NY 101).
. Matter of Thorne (155 NY 140).
. Matter of Upjohn (304 NY 366).
. Carroll v Collins (6 App Div 106); United States Trust Co. of N. Y. v Hoyt (150 App Div 621); 2 CJS, Adoption, § 3; NY Jur 2d, Interim Topics, Adoption, § 2.
. See, also, Matter of Martz (102 Misc 2d 102).
. Domestic Relations Law,, art 7.
. Prior to 1873, certain charitable institutions were authorized to place out children for adoption. (See L 1849, ch 244; Carroll v Collins, 6 App Div 106, supra.)
. For a thorough examination of the changes in the adoption law from 1873 to 1920, see Matter of Kingsbury (192 App Div 206, affd 230 NY 580).
. L 1915, ch 352, amdg Domestic Relations Law, §§ 110, 114.
. E.g., Domestic Relations Law, § 111-a, as amd by L 1977, ch 862, §§ 3-9; L 1980, ch 575, §§ 4-6.
. See, also, Murphy v Brooks (120 Misc 704).
. Adoption is not a right, but a privilege granted by the Legislature (Matter of Pierro, 173 Misc 123.)
. Adams v Nadel (124 NYS2d 427); Matter of Reed (106 NYS2d 125).
. See 2 CJS, Adoption, § 13, which cites the adoption laws of California and New Jersey as requiring that an adoptive parent be a certain number of years older than the
. Matter of Upjohn (304 NY 366, 373, supra).
. Caruso v Caruso (175 Misc 290); Matter of Upjohn (supra); Matter of Wood v Howe (15 Misc 2d 1048); Matter of Male F. (97 Misc 2d 505); Samuels, Family Court Law and Practice in New York (rev ed), §318.
. People v Onofre (51 NY2d 476).