This is an application filed on November 11, 2012 by an adult who was born on

August 22, 1970 and adopted on December 14, 1976. The record reflects that pursuant to a decision of this court, dated June 15, 1998, in connection with applicant's medical issues, she was previously given the entire investigative report contained in her adoption file. Applicant now seeks to unseal the balance of her adoption file because "[a]ccording to the investigation report from the Dept of Social Services the birth father because of his AWOL status was not aware of the adoption." In a letter to the court, dated October 29, 2012, petitioner wrote: "I have a good reason to believe that my biological father was not informed about the adoption and he never signed any paperwork for that. Therefore I request from your court to open the records to contact him." In an earlier letter, dated October 7, 2012, petitioner asked for information from her adoption file, stating: "The reason I'm asking all these questions is that I have found on Facebook a woman by the name Ann Mehling that looks a lot like me so before I contact her I want to make sure I have the right Mehling." In other words, the applicant seeks identifying information which she believes may be contained in her adoption file for the purpose of identifying and contacting her biological father and mother.

For the reasons set forth below, the court must deny the present application to unseal the records.

In New York State, the sealing of adoption records has been mandated for more than 60 years, although courts had the discretionary power to seal these records even before then (Matter of Linda F.M., 52 NY2d 236, 239 [1981]; appeal dismissed 454 US 806 [1981]. Currently, adoption records are sealed pursuant to DRL § 114, to protect and insure confidentiality which is "vital to the adoption process" (Matter of Hayden, 106 Misc 2d 849 [Sup Ct, Albany County 1981]). As expressed by the Court of Appeals, the purpose is to provide anonymity to the natural parents, enable the adoptive parents to form a close bond with their adopted child, protect the adopted child from possibly disturbing information that might be found in his records, and allow the state to foster an orderly and supervised adoption system (Matter of Linda F.M., 52 NY2d 236, 239 [1981]; appeal dismissed 454 US 806 [1981] [internal citations omitted]). There have been challenges to the power of New York State to seal adoption records, but the courts have determined that these statutes are not in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and are constitutional (Matter of Linda F.M., 52 NY2d 236 [1981]; appeal dismissed 454 US 806 [1981]; Matter of Romano, 109 Misc 2d 99 [Sur Ct, Kings County 1981]).

At the same time, the courts and the Legislature have recognized that circumstances may exist in which it is vital that an adopted child be provided with information regarding his [*2]background (Matter of Peter B., 12 Misc 3d 1184[A] [Sur Ct, Nassau County 2006]). When serious health issues arise, an adopted child or her adoptive parents may seek the medical history of the child's biological family pursuant to DRL § 114 (4). This statute permits interested parties seeking medical information to establish a prima facie case of good cause (see e.g. Matter of Peter B., 12 Misc 3d 1184[A] [Sur Ct, Nassau County 2006]). It is also possible to petition the court for access to adoption records for other reasons pursuant to DRL § 114 (2). This section provides that adoption records may be unsealed upon a showing of "good cause." It further directs that there must be "due notice to the adoptive parents and to such additional persons as the court may direct." As noted above, the applicant previously received all of the medical information in her file, which was contained in the investigative report previously released to her.While it is unusual for adoption records to be unsealed for a non-medical reason, "[e]xceptions to the medical requirement are rare but do occur occasionally" (Matter of Lewis, NYLJ, Apr. 20, 2007, at 32, col 1 [Sur Ct, Kings County]). The courts and the Legislature have attempted to strike a balance between the state's interest in maintaining sealed adoption records and the sometimes conflicting interests of all parties to an adoption, as further weighed against the justification underlying each particular request to unseal the records (15 Buffalo Journal Public Interest Law 49, 72 [1996]).

In weighing the opposing interests, courts may deny an adoptee's request to unseal her adoption record for lack of good cause. In a 2006 decision, the court denied an adoptee's application where it determined that the request was based upon an "adoptee's general curiosity about her ancestry and background" (Matter of Adoption of M.F., NYLJ, Sept. 9, 2006, at 46,

col 5 [Sur Ct, Kings County]). Similarly, access to records was denied where petitioner wanted to give his children and grandchildren the opportunity to find out about their father's heritage (Matter of Lewis, NYLJ, Apr. 20, 2007, at 32, col 1 [Sur Ct, Kings County]). "By its very nature, good cause admits of no universal, black-letter definition" (Matter of Linda F.M., 52 NY2d 236, 240 [1981]; appeal dismissed 454 US 806 [1981]).

In the present proceeding, applicant expresses a heartfelt and sincere desire to identify and contact her biological mother and father. While applicant also expresses her concern that her biological father was not involved in planning for her adoption, this concern, even if substantiated, would not, under the statute, give rise to good cause for the unsealing of the adoption files at the request of the adoptee. Applicant presents no other basis, medical or otherwise, for the unsealing of the adoption records which, as noted above, are sealed pursuant to DRL § 114. In reviewing the balance between the expressed interest of the applicant and the interest of New York State in maintaining sealed adoption records, the court finds that the reasons put forth by the applicant in support of her application to unseal the adoption records are insufficient to establish good cause within the meaning of DRL § 114 (2).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated: February 1, 2013 [*3]

EDWARD W. McCARTY III

Judge of the

Surrogate's Court