Court Opinion

ID: 9823758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 10:09:50.973621+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:26.425600
License: Public Domain

Hall, J.,
dissents, and votes to reverse the order appealed from and grant the mother’s motion to vacate the judicial surrenders of the parental rights executed on January 20, 2011, with the following memorandum: The majority concludes, based on the language of Social Services Law § 383-c (6) (d), that a judicial surrender of parental rights may only be vacated on the grounds of fraud, duress, or coercion. While that conclusion is supported by the statutory language, here, the Family Court’s colloquy was misleading and fundamentally unfair to the mother. Based on this record, I cannot conclude that the mother knowingly and intelligently surrendered her parental rights. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
Pursuant to Social Services Law § 383-c (3) (b), at the time a parent appears before a judge to execute and acknowledge a surrender of parental rights, the judge shall inform the parent, inter alia, of the parent’s right to obtain supportive counseling and “of the consequences of such surrender, including informing such parent that the parent is giving up all rights to have custody, visit with, speak with, write to or learn about the child, forever, unless the parties have agreed to different terms.” Here, at the time the mother executed the judicial surrenders of her parental rights, the Family Court did not inform the mother of her right to supportive counseling or of the consequences of the surrenders, including that she was giving up all rights to have custody, visit with, speak with, write to or learn about the children, forever.
Rather than inform the mother of the important rights she was giving up by executing the surrenders, the Family Court focused on other matters, which led the mother to believe that she would have some rights to visit the children after executing the surrenders. For instance, the Family Court noted that the judicial surrenders were conditioned upon a specified relative (hereinafter the foster mother) adopting the children, and *761asked the mother if she would like to be notified if the adoption does not go through. The mother indicated that she would like to be so notified, and the court stated that she would be notified of important matters prior to the adoption. The court also stressed the importance of the agency having the mother’s correct address and telephone number.
The Family Court also asked the mother if there was any visitation to work out between her and the foster mother. The mother indicated that there was. In my view, this colloquy reasonably lead the mother to believe that, even after executing the surrenders, she would have rights to visitation with the children. Significantly, the court did not inform the mother that she would have no right to visit the children if she could not work out a visitation agreement with the foster mother.
The Family Court’s colloquy focused on what would happen after the mother executed the surrenders, not the rights she was giving up by executing the surrenders. The court did not make clear to the mother that, by executing the surrenders, she was giving up all rights to have custody, visit with, spieak with, write to or learn about the children, forever, as required by Social Services Law § 383-c (3) (b). Instead, the court’s questions suggested that the mother would have some rights with respect to the children, even after the execution of the surrenders. This was manifestly unfair to the mother, who was likely focused on what the court was telling her during the proceeding, as opposed to the language of the written surrenders.
Moreover, even the written surrenders contained language that was misleading to the mother. In the section titled “Post-Surrender/Post Adoption Communication or Contact Agreement,” the written waivers stated, “[i]t is further understood that I shall have such contact as is mutually agreeable between the parties.” This language incorrectly suggested that the mother had a post-surrender right to contact with the children based on terms or a schedule that was mutually agreeable by the parties. It made it seem as though the mother had a right to contact the children independent of the foster mother’s consent. In reality, however, the mother had no right to contact the children without the foster mother’s consent. If the foster mother denied the mother visitation, the mother would have no right to see the children. The mother was never advised that her visitation with the children would be entirely in the control of the foster mother. Indeed, the record reveals that the foster mother denied the mother visitation with the children shortly after the surrenders were executed, but the mother and *762foster mother subsequently resolved their differences, and the mother enjoyed visitation with the children for a substantial period of time thereafter. The mother filed her motion to vacate the surrenders only after the foster mother again denied her visitation with the children.
Under these circumstances, it is my opinion that the mother did not knowingly and intelligently execute the surrenders with a clear understanding of their consequences (cf. Matter of Brittany R. [Annemarie R.], 130 AD3d 1271 [2015]).
I am also troubled by the statute’s narrowly defined grounds of “fraud, duress or coercion in the execution or inducement of a surrender” (Social Services Law § 383-c [6] [d]) as being the sole grounds for vacating a judicial surrender of parental rights. Following the majority’s interpretation of the statute to its logical conclusion, a parent may not vacate the surrender of his or her parental rights, even where the court has said nothing to the parent to ensure that he or she understands the important rights being given up by executing the surrender, and no colloquy exists on the record to ensure that the surrender was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, so long as the surrender was not procured by fraud, duress, or coercion. In such cases, the parent will be left with no remedy where the court has completely failed in its obligations pursuant to Social Services Law § 383-c (3) (b).
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent, and vote to reverse the order appealed from and grant the mother’s motion to vacate the judicial surrenders of her parental rights.