Case Name: In the Matter of the Abrogation of Adoption Proceedings of Elmer F. McDevitt, an Infant. Kathleen McDevitt, Appellant; Mary E. McDevitt, Respondent. In the Matter of the Abrogation of Adoption Proceedings of Catherine McDevitt, an Infant. Kathleen McDevitt, Appellant; Mary E. McDevitt, Respondent. In the Matter of the Abrogation of Adoption Proceedings of George H. McDevitt, an Infant. Kathleen McDevitt, Appellant; Mary E. McDevitt, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1917-07-11
Citations: 221 N.Y. 598
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Abrogation of Adoption Proceedings of Elmer F. McDevitt, an Infant. Kathleen McDevitt, Appellant; Mary E. McDevitt, Respondent. In the Matter of the Abrogation of Adoption Proceedings of Catherine McDevitt, an Infant. Kathleen McDevitt, Appellant; Mary E. McDevitt, Respondent. In the Matter of the Abrogation of Adoption Proceedings of George H. McDevitt, an Infant. Kathleen McDevitt, Appellant; Mary E. McDevitt, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 221
Pages: 598–599

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Abrogation of Adoption Proceedings of Elmer F. McDevitt, an Infant. Kathleen McDevitt, Appellant; Mary E. McDevitt, Respondent. In the Matter of the Abrogation of Adoption Proceedings of Catherine McDevitt, an Infant. Kathleen McDevitt, Appellant; Mary E. McDevitt, Respondent. In the Matter of the Abrogation of Adoption Proceedings of George H. McDevitt, an Infant. Kathleen McDevitt, Appellant; Mary E. McDevitt, Respondent.
(Argued June 5, 1917;
decided July 11, 1917.)
Matter of McDevitt, 176 App. Div. 418, affirmed.
Appeal in each of the above-entitled proceedings from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 19, 1911, which reversed an order of the Kings County Court abrogating, vacating and setting aside a prior order of adoption and restoring custody of the infant to its mother. The adoption was with the mother’s consent, and there was no proof of fraud. The foster parent objected to abrogation of the adoption. The Appellate Division reversed the order of abrogation upon the ground that under the Domestic Relations Law the consent of the foster parent was essential, and that the county judge had no power to dispense therewith.
Theodore M. Crisp for appellant.
Hugo Hirsh for respondent.

Opinion:
Orders affirmed, without costs; no opinion.
Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin and Crane, JJ.