Also known as: Uniform Adoption Acts · UAA
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A model statute promulgated to promote uniformity among state adoption laws by supplying jurisdictional rules and procedural standards for adoption proceedings. Most states fill the jurisdictional gap left by the UCCJEA exclusion of adoption either by incorporating the UAA provisions or by extending the UCCJEA to cover adoption petitions.
Unity Underhill directs a nonprofit from its County C headquarters but maintains her only home in County D. She files an adoption petition in County C for a child she met through the nonprofit. The court dismisses the petition because state law requires the petitioner to reside in the filing county and Underhill has no dwelling there.
Ugo Uberti, an unmarried father with physical custody of his child, objects when the mother consents to adoption by her new spouse. The court applies the UAA consent framework and grants Uberti standing because he has acted as the child's primary caregiver, blocking the adoption without his agreement.
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 caseThe 1994 version was adopted in only one state and earlier versions reached only a handful of jurisdictions before being withdrawn. States instead amend their own statutes or borrow selected UAA jurisdictional provisions to fill the gap left by the UCCJEA.
It supplies alternative bases including the petitioner's residence, the child's residence, or the location of an agency having custody. Most states either incorporate these rules or extend the UCCJEA to adoption to avoid a jurisdictional void.
Supporting sources
Yes. Consent executed more than eight days after birth is generally irrevocable, while consent given within that window may be revoked within 192 hours under the model act.
The model act and most state statutes require the petitioner to be a resident of the county where the petition is filed. Courts enforce this rule strictly because adoption jurisdiction is purely statutory.
Supporting sources
…is acting as the guardian of the child, e. g. , In re Erhardt , 27 App. Div. 2d 836, 277 N. Y. S. 2d 734 (1967). Moreover, the Uniform Adoption Act, after which the New York statute appears to be patterned, has a similar section that its drafters intended to benefit "a father having custody of his illegitimate minor child." Uniform…