Decisions of Interest

Vacating Adoptions Denied

Nassau County Surrogate Edward McCarty III has declined petitioning parents' request that the courtroom be closed as they try to undo their adoption of two Russian-born children, stating, “This matter is far too important to the people of Nassau County, the United States and Russia to limit the public to its unique factual issues.” Matter of Adoption of Child A and Child C, X2014-46725.

The parents went to Russia to adopt the children, whom they were assured were in good mental and physical health. Some time after the 2008 adoption, however, it became clear that the children ' now both in their teens ' suffered serious mental and physical conditions. Both are currently living in a state-run facility because of ongoing medical care requirements.

The parents petitioned to vacate the adoptions based on misrepresentations to them by two child-placement agencies, among others. They also asserted that the two children pose a danger to them and that one of the children is not even the child that they originally agreed to adopt, but was switched with that chosen child without their knowledge or consent.

To shield the children from publicity, the parents sought an exception to the rule that court proceedings be kept open to public scrutiny. While apparently sympathetic to their concerns, McCarty noted: “There will always be an argument to close a courtroom when children are involved-to shield their lives from the public eye. However, if closure were granted in every case involving a child, it would no longer be an exception, it would be the rule.”

McCarty put his ruling in a broader context of a Russian-American adoption process beset with “disturbing facts.” For instance, he noted some 20% of Russian children adopted in the United States had developmental disabilities. Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin banned American adoptions in late 2012 but children from the country still can be “obtained” through Eastern European adoption agencies, said McCarty. Furthermore, the judge said, adopted Russian children were now being “exchanged on the Internet through a process called re-homing without the benefit of any court or government supervision.”

Against that backdrop, in the case before McCarty, the couple is asking to dissolve its 2008 adoption of purported siblings who are now in their teens.

The couple worked with the placement agency Spence-Chapin Services to Families in 2006, seeking to adopt one or two healthy Russian children. Spence-Chapin referred the couple to Cradle of Hope in Maryland. That agency's Bridge of Hope program described placing children that were “selected by their orphanage directors as healthy and socially well adjusted.”

In April 2008, the couple adopted the children in Russia. The pair underwent a mandatory medical exam by a U.S. embassy-approved doctor who cleared entry after a brief examination. But when the couple returned to the United States, they learned the children had serious medical and psychiatric problems. The couple said the children have threatened to kill them, contacted unknown parties and were found to have been sexually abused in the past.

The couple spent four years trying to find the best medical care for the children, who have lived in a state mental health facility since 2012, when it was determined the pair needed constant medical supervision. The couple said they were subject to misrepresentations from various entities, such as the two placement agencies. They petitioned to vacate the adoption based on newly-discovered evidence of the children's condition, as well as due to the dangers the children posed to the couple and themselves.

In their petition, the couple raised concerns C was different from the child they selected, and said that the birth father never agreed to his children's adoption.

At an initial conference, the couple asked McCarty to keep the courtroom closed. In his decision, McCarty said it was difficult to overcome the presumption of open courtrooms, even if the matter involved children. To surmount the presumption, McCarty said it took “compelling circumstances,” such as evidence of harm or potential harm. The proof of harm here was “only speculation,” McCarty said, adding that the parents and children would stay anonymous in the case, and there was “the strongest of possibilities” the children would not be coming to court for the proceedings. McCarty acknowledged that adoption records are sealed and considered secret, but said that did not mean court had to close in a petition to vacate an adoption.

The interests behind sealing adoption records and proceedings included guarding the privacy of adoptive parents and their new family, as well as protecting children's adoptive status. None of those interests were served with a grant of closure, McCarty said.

Furthermore, McCarty said, there was a general public interest to consider. For example, adjudicating fraud claims here would be of “significant concern” to Russian children up for adoption, he said. Moreover, the public would also have “humanitarian concerns” about the treatment of children in Russia. It also would be of “great public concern considering adoption” with Spence-Chapin and Cradle of Hope, he said.

McCarty said he was “not without reservations” about media coverage and insisted the media should not try to identify the children or couple.

“If such attempts are made, this court will strongly reconsider the issue of public access,” he wrote. ' Andrew Keshner , New York Law Journal

'

Vacating Adoptions Denied

Nassau County Surrogate Edward McCarty III has declined petitioning parents' request that the courtroom be closed as they try to undo their adoption of two Russian-born children, stating, “This matter is far too important to the people of Nassau County, the United States and Russia to limit the public to its unique factual issues.” Matter of Adoption of Child A and Child C, X2014-46725.

The parents went to Russia to adopt the children, whom they were assured were in good mental and physical health. Some time after the 2008 adoption, however, it became clear that the children ' now both in their teens ' suffered serious mental and physical conditions. Both are currently living in a state-run facility because of ongoing medical care requirements.

The parents petitioned to vacate the adoptions based on misrepresentations to them by two child-placement agencies, among others. They also asserted that the two children pose a danger to them and that one of the children is not even the child that they originally agreed to adopt, but was switched with that chosen child without their knowledge or consent.

To shield the children from publicity, the parents sought an exception to the rule that court proceedings be kept open to public scrutiny. While apparently sympathetic to their concerns, McCarty noted: “There will always be an argument to close a courtroom when children are involved-to shield their lives from the public eye. However, if closure were granted in every case involving a child, it would no longer be an exception, it would be the rule.”

McCarty put his ruling in a broader context of a Russian-American adoption process beset with “disturbing facts.” For instance, he noted some 20% of Russian children adopted in the United States had developmental disabilities. Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin banned American adoptions in late 2012 but children from the country still can be “obtained” through Eastern European adoption agencies, said McCarty. Furthermore, the judge said, adopted Russian children were now being “exchanged on the Internet through a process called re-homing without the benefit of any court or government supervision.”

Against that backdrop, in the case before McCarty, the couple is asking to dissolve its 2008 adoption of purported siblings who are now in their teens.

The couple worked with the placement agency Spence-Chapin Services to Families in 2006, seeking to adopt one or two healthy Russian children. Spence-Chapin referred the couple to Cradle of Hope in Maryland. That agency's Bridge of Hope program described placing children that were “selected by their orphanage directors as healthy and socially well adjusted.”

In April 2008, the couple adopted the children in Russia. The pair underwent a mandatory medical exam by a U.S. embassy-approved doctor who cleared entry after a brief examination. But when the couple returned to the United States, they learned the children had serious medical and psychiatric problems. The couple said the children have threatened to kill them, contacted unknown parties and were found to have been sexually abused in the past.

The couple spent four years trying to find the best medical care for the children, who have lived in a state mental health facility since 2012, when it was determined the pair needed constant medical supervision. The couple said they were subject to misrepresentations from various entities, such as the two placement agencies. They petitioned to vacate the adoption based on newly-discovered evidence of the children's condition, as well as due to the dangers the children posed to the couple and themselves.

In their petition, the couple raised concerns C was different from the child they selected, and said that the birth father never agreed to his children's adoption.

At an initial conference, the couple asked McCarty to keep the courtroom closed. In his decision, McCarty said it was difficult to overcome the presumption of open courtrooms, even if the matter involved children. To surmount the presumption, McCarty said it took “compelling circumstances,” such as evidence of harm or potential harm. The proof of harm here was “only speculation,” McCarty said, adding that the parents and children would stay anonymous in the case, and there was “the strongest of possibilities” the children would not be coming to court for the proceedings. McCarty acknowledged that adoption records are sealed and considered secret, but said that did not mean court had to close in a petition to vacate an adoption.

The interests behind sealing adoption records and proceedings included guarding the privacy of adoptive parents and their new family, as well as protecting children's adoptive status. None of those interests were served with a grant of closure, McCarty said.

Furthermore, McCarty said, there was a general public interest to consider. For example, adjudicating fraud claims here would be of “significant concern” to Russian children up for adoption, he said. Moreover, the public would also have “humanitarian concerns” about the treatment of children in Russia. It also would be of “great public concern considering adoption” with Spence-Chapin and Cradle of Hope, he said.

McCarty said he was “not without reservations” about media coverage and insisted the media should not try to identify the children or couple.

“If such attempts are made, this court will strongly reconsider the issue of public access,” he wrote. ' Andrew Keshner , New York Law Journal

'