Justice Lucy Billings

Read Full-Text Decision

Petitioner sought to have New York State of Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) annul an Acknowledgments of Paternity (AoP) of her two children filed with OCFS by T.E.S., who was not the children’s father, filing the AoP maliciously to harass her. She also sought to enjoin OCFS from placing any other name on the putative father registry (PFR) as the children’s father. Petitioner stated she conceived the children by selecting a specific anonymous sperm donor with no rights or responsibilities to them, who was not T.E.S.—with whom she broke off a brief relationship in 2009­, and he began harassing her physically and emotionally. She noted no father was named on the children’s birth certificates. OCFS moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, noting petitioner failed to follow procedures for vacating an AoP, and it did not violate any law by denying her request to vacate T.E.S.’s acknowledgments as EPTL 4-1.2(a)(4) required a court order for it to remove him from the PFR. Petitioner complied with §4-1.2(a)(4), and a Feb. 2016 order to serve T.E.S. with the petition, thus, OCFS was ordered to expunge any AoP of the two children T.E.S. filed or will file with it, exclude his name permanently as the children’s father from the PFR, and enjoining him from filing any AoP of the children.

Justice Lucy Billings

Read Full-Text Decision

Petitioner sought to have New York State of Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) annul an Acknowledgments of Paternity (AoP) of her two children filed with OCFS by T.E.S., who was not the children’s father, filing the AoP maliciously to harass her. She also sought to enjoin OCFS from placing any other name on the putative father registry (PFR) as the children’s father. Petitioner stated she conceived the children by selecting a specific anonymous sperm donor with no rights or responsibilities to them, who was not T.E.S.—with whom she broke off a brief relationship in 2009­, and he began harassing her physically and emotionally. She noted no father was named on the children’s birth certificates. OCFS moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, noting petitioner failed to follow procedures for vacating an AoP, and it did not violate any law by denying her request to vacate T.E.S.’s acknowledgments as EPTL 4-1.2(a)(4) required a court order for it to remove him from the PFR. Petitioner complied with §4-1.2(a)(4), and a Feb. 2016 order to serve T.E.S. with the petition, thus, OCFS was ordered to expunge any AoP of the two children T.E.S. filed or will file with it, exclude his name permanently as the children’s father from the PFR, and enjoining him from filing any AoP of the children.