TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Moore

Matter of the Application of Rhodes H. Moore to Adopt John Henry Moore, an Infant Under the Age of Twelve Tears

In re Moore, 72 Misc. 644 (1911)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York County Courts · State Trial Courts
Decided
July 15, 1911
Judges
Rawson
Citations
72 Misc. 644132 N.Y.S. 249
Headnotes
Adoption of children — Mode and sufficiency of adoption — Desertion by parent. Parent and child — Custody and control of child —Right of parent as against third person. Under the laws relating to the adoption of children the abandonment of a child by a parent is a question of fact to be determined upon competent evidence and upon notice to the parent. The mother of a child nullius fll-lus is not necessarily an unfit person to have its care and custody. In the absence of notice to the mother of adoption proceedings, the question of her abandonment of the child may be raised on her motion to vacate an order of adoption.
Summary
Motion to vacate an order of adoption.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Rawson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Rawson, J.

I have examined with considerable care the provisions of the Domestic Relations Law relating to the adoption of children and relating to apprentices and serv *645 ants. Some of the provisions of these laws are similar to the provisions of the Revised Statutes as to apprentices and servants, and the decisions under the Revised Statutes have aided me in construing the comparatively new provisions of the law relating to adoption; and I have arrived at the conelusion that the question of the abandonment of a child by a parent is a question of fact to bo determined in some manner upon competent evidence (under Revised Statutes it was by a justice of the peace) and that the determination in such a case as this should, if practicable, be upon notice to the mother of the child. Matter of MacRae, 189 N. Y. 142 . In this case the mother had no opportunity to contest that question. If it could have been threshed out before the county judge, primarily, it should have been upon notice to her. In the absence of such notice, I think the question may be raised on this application. It could be raised on habeas corpus. Matter of Larson, 31 Hun, 539 . Why not here? The evidence as to abandonment laid before my learned predecessor was a mere conclusion of fact, and such conclusion was false, and cthe falsity of that evidence and its insufficiency is* ground for setting aside the order of adoption, if I have the power so to do.

The child is nullius filius, but it does not by any means follow that the mother of such a child is not a fit person to have its care and custody. The evidence before me seems to warrant the conclusion that she is a fit person, and the evidence upon -which the order of adoption was made seems to me to have been insufficient to warrant a contrary conclusion. The dictates of common humanity would seem to require that the custody of this child be given to its mother; and, believing that I have the power and the right so to do (Matter of Trimm, 30 Misc. Rep. 493 ), it will be ordered that the order of adoption heretofore' granted be vacated and set aside.

Motion granted.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1917: 11919: 11921: 11929: 21932: 11938: 11944: 119172026peak 1929 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re MacLean109 Misc. 479 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1919)
  2. Hill v. Patton85 P.2d 75 (N.M. 1938)
  3. In re the Adoption of Davis142 Misc. 681 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1932)
  4. People ex rel. Lentino v. Feser195 A.D. 90 (1921)
  5. Stevens v. Halstead181 A.D. 198 (1917)
  6. In re Glascock1929 OK 357, 280 P. 813

Most recent

  1. Wakefield's Adoption53 Pa. D. & C. 153 (1944)
  2. Hill v. Patton85 P.2d 75 (N.M. 1938)
  3. In re the Adoption of Davis142 Misc. 681 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1932)
  4. In re Glascock1929 OK 357, 280 P. 813
  5. Newell v. Fisher138 Okla. 247 (1929)
  6. People ex rel. Lentino v. Feser195 A.D. 90 (1921)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
In re MacRae, 81 N.E. 956 (N.Y. 1907) 38
In re the Abrogation of Adoption of Trimm, 1 Mills Surr. 468 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1900) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list