Also known as: independent adoptions · private adoption
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A placement process in which natural parents contract directly with adoptive parents for the adoption of their child. This mechanism is authorized in some states but prohibited in others. Only limited states permit nonagency professionals to serve as intermediaries.
Idina, who is pregnant, meets directly with Ian and his spouse and agrees to relinquish her newborn to them. They execute a private placement contract without any licensed agency. An attorney prepares the documents but performs only ministerial tasks. The family court approves the adoption under state law that recognizes such direct agreements.
Israel, an unwed father, learns that the mother has arranged a direct placement of their child with Igor and his spouse. Israel files a paternity action before any termination order. The court must determine whether his timely legal action preserves his right to notice despite the private nature of the adoption arrangement.
Abdiel Caban and Maria Mohammed began living together in New York City in September 1968. They continued until the end of 1973. During this time they held themselves out as husband and wife even though Caban remained married to another woman until 1974. Mohammed gave birth to two children during this period: David Andrew Caban on July 16, 1969, and Denise Caban on March 12, 1971. Caban was named as the father on both birth certificates. The couple jointly supported the children while living together as a family. In December 1973, Mohammed left Caban with the children and began residing with Kazin Mohammed, whom she married on January 30, 1974. For the following nine months, the children visited their maternal grandmother weekly, allowing Caban to see them regularly. In September 1974, the grandmother moved to Puerto Rico and took the children with her at the Mohammeds' request. Caban maintained contact through his parents in Puerto Rico. In November 1975, he traveled there to retrieve the children, returning with them to New York. Upon learning of the children's location, Maria Mohammed attempted to recover them with police assistance. The Mohammeds then initiated custody proceedings in New York Family Court. That court awarded temporary custody to the Mohammeds and granted visiting rights to Caban and his new wife, Nina. In January 1976, the Mohammeds filed a petition for adoption of the children under section 110 of the New York Domestic Relations Law. The Cabans responded with a cross-petition for adoption in March 1976. A hearing occurred before a Law Assistant to the Surrogate in Kings County, where both parties presented evidence and cross-examined witnesses. The Surrogate granted the Mohammeds' adoption petition. The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the decision, relying on the Court of Appeals' ruling in In re Malpica-Orsini. The New York Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, leading to review by the United States Supreme Court.
View caseIndependent adoption occurs when natural parents contract directly with adoptive parents. Agency adoption requires a licensed entity to take custody and select the family. The distinction turns on whether an intermediary performs the core matching and custody functions.
Supporting sources
A private intermediary is prohibited when state law limits such roles to licensed agencies or specified professionals. Active matching, negotiation, or dual representation by an unlicensed person violates the restriction even if the parents ultimately contract directly.
Supporting sources
Late agency involvement does not cure an earlier private arrangement when unlicensed parties performed the core matching and negotiation functions. The statute requires the licensed agency to act as intermediary from the outset to satisfy the protective purpose of the licensing rules.
Supporting sources
Direct negotiation between the natural parent and adoptive parents without agency involvement supports validity when the state permits independent adoptions. Written consent obtained after separate counseling and the absence of prohibited intermediary conduct further confirm compliance with statutory requirements.
Supporting sources