</abbr></cite>A New York appeals court has found in favor of a Chinese teen who was adopted by a wealthy couple and then given up for adoption again, ruling that she is entitled to a portion of her first family's $250 million estate.
In 1996, John and Christine Svenningsen of Westchester, N.Y, adopted a baby girl from China, whom they named Emily Fuqui Svenningsen. Before finalizing the adoption, the couple, who already had four biological children, had one more biological child. Around that same time, John Svenningsen, a party goods magnate, was diagnosed with cancer, according to court documents.
On May 6, 1996, the Svenningsens signed an adoption agreement stating that they would not abandon Emily or "transfer or have [her] re-adopted," and that she would be deemed "a biological child," according to court papers in the case. The agreement also stated that Emily had the right to inherit the estate of her adopted parents, who had established a pair of trusts for their children, as well as one meant solely for Emily.
In December 2003, Christine brought Emily to The Devereux Glenholme School in Washington, Conn., a boarding school for children with special-needs. According to court papers, her lawyers talked to school administrators about putting Emily up for adoption; the school's assistant executive director, Maryann Campbell, and her husband, Fred Cass, expressed interest in adopting Emily.
On December 16, 2004, Christine voluntarily surrendered custody of Emily to Spence-Chapin Services to Families and Children, an adoption agency in New York. On May 18, 2006, Campbell and Cass formally adopted Emily.
According to court papers, neither Campbell nor Cass had any knowledge of the terms of Emily's will or trusts, but eventually they learned that John Svenningsen had arranged to provide for Emily's educational and medical needs. They were sent a letter by Christine's lawyers stating that Emily's trusts totaled $842,397.
But later, they learned that a federal tax return valued Svenningsen's estate at more than $250 million. The couple sued on behalf of Emily for a new accounting, but Christine claimed that Emily no longer had any rights to the estate since she was re-adopted. The Westchester County Surrogate's Court disagreed, arguing that John Svenningsen meant to provide for all of his children, both biological and adopted.
Although Christine and her biological children appealed, on Feb. 6, 2013, the Appellate Division's Brooklyn-based Second Department ruled in Emily's favor.
"It cannot be overly emphasized that Christine's unilateral surrender of Emily for adoption more than eight years after the decedent and Christine adopted her was not foreseeable at the time the will, and the trust documents were drafted and executed by the decedent," Judge Leonard Austin wrote.
John Svenningsen, he continued, "expressed an intention to include his adopted child in the absence of any reason to believe that his status as the parent of Emily would be terminated by her subsequent adoption many years after his death."
Post by niemand88f on Feb 15, 2013 12:45:27 GMT -5
How sad that she would give Emily up after having her for 6 years. I'm glad Emily found a better family, and takes as much as she can from her former "mother".
How sad that she would give Emily up after having her for 6 years. I'm glad Emily found a better family, and takes as much as she can from her former "mother".
Ditto. I hope she gets everything she is entitled to for sure.
In December 2004, Christine surrendered her parental rights over Emily. The parties differ as to the facts which precipitated the surrender and second adoption. Christine maintains that Emily was a difficult child and unable to bond with the family. Petitioners suggest that Christine may have wanted to terminate Emily's interest in decedent's estate. In December 2003, Christine placed Emily at the Devereux Glenholme School based upon a diagnosis of reactive attachment disorder. The staff at Devereux did not concur with that diagnosis. Petitioners worked at Devereux. Maryann states that after Emily was enrolled at Devereux petitioners would often care for her on weekends. In 2004, Christine informed Emily that she was going to surrender her for adoption. As noted, Christine signed a form surrendering guardianship and custody of Emily to Spence-Chapin Services to Families and Children. It appears that Emily has thrived living with petitioners.
Petitioners' application to adopt Emily was granted by order dated May 18, 2006. Maryann states that she and her husband were never informed of Emily's interests in decedent's estate. She did learn from Rick Antle, Christine's financial advisor, that decedent had arranged for funds to be made available for Emily's medical needs and her future education. While Maryann sought a copy of the relevant document, she states that it was not provided to her. Mr. Antle did send petitioners a{**29 Misc 3d at 791} proposed agreement seeking their consent to separate Emily's interests under the 1995 Trust and 1996 Trust from those held for the benefit of decedent's other children. Petitioners did not sign the proposed agreement. Christine states that in the course of seeking to restructure the family's trusts she was advised that the adoption by petitioners terminated Emily's interest in the testamentary trusts and the 1995 Trust. It is undisputed that at the time of the second adoption, neither Spence-Chapin nor the Family Court were advised of Emily's interests under decedent's will, the 1995 Trust or the 1996 Trust (collectively referred to as decedent's estate plan).
It's the law here, that a child who is adopted still has the right to inherit from a biological parent or prior parent; it's statutory.
Where is "here"? I only wonder because I was adopted by a stepparent at age 8. I wonder what my rights would be if my bio dad died. He doesn't have much, and we have an OK relationship, I am just curious.
You kinda hope karma is real and this woman spends the rest of her life in a miserable state and then gets dumped into a care home where no one visits her.
Where is "here"? I only wonder because I was adopted by a stepparent at age 8. I wonder what my rights would be if my bio dad died. He doesn't have much, and we have an OK relationship, I am just curious.
kansas; but I think that's pretty much the same all around. Where are you?
NY :-) I thought maybe you were in a different country, I don't pay attention to locations enough.
I generally try to give all people involved in adoption disruption the benefit of the doubt because it has to be a heart wrenching decision and sometimes is the only option that is best for the child. However, this woman does come off as doing this for the money. Quick googling, she appears to have married her first husband when she was 18ish and he was 45. It's probably not all that relevant but it affects the way I see the situation.
It's the law here, that a child who is adopted still has the right to inherit from a biological parent or prior parent; it's statutory.
Does that right override the parents right to leave their money to whoever they want, even if that includes none of their children?
Sent from my T-Mobile myTouch using proboards
My trusts and estates class was a lifetime ago, but IIRC, it's difficult to disinherit your children. I think you need to specifically state that in your will.
Innnnnneteresting. My mom was adopted by a stepparent. Her bio dad has been dead for 25 years and probably died penniless, given what I know of him. And I doubt she'd want anything of his anyway. But interesting, nonetheless (she found out a few years ago he had a stepdaughter and another biological daughter with his second wife).
Oh, yeah, and good for Emily. Must have been traumatizing to be re-adopted at age 8/10 or whatever, but I'm glad her new parents weren't assholes.
You kinda hope karma is real and this woman spends the rest of her life in a miserable state and then gets dumped into a care home where no one visits her vat of elephant dung where she slowly smothers to death.
FTFY.
This enrages me. My children are my children. As much as if they had come from my own body. I can't imagine deciding that Edith is a pain in the ass and that she should go be someone else's kid, because she is MY kid and even when she's a pain in the ass, she's MY pain in the ass and I love her. Jesus, that poor girl. I hope she takes that bitch to the cleaner.
They adopted her as a baby, and the mother claimed she had reactive attachment disorder? Isn't that something that usually affects older kids who are adopted out of orphanages or who spend years in multiple foster homes?
If that claim is even true...it sounds like the mother just made no effort to bond with Emily and then abandoned her because she "didn't fit in." Nice. Poor kid.
They adopted her as a baby, and the mother claimed she had reactive attachment disorder? Isn't that something that usually affects older kids who are adopted out of orphanages or who spend years in multiple foster homes?
If that claim is even true...it sounds like the mother just made no effort to bond with Emily and then abandoned her because she "didn't fit in." Nice. Poor kid.
Baby just means under a year. Based on when she was adopted (1996) She was likely 8-14 months when they got her and would've been in an orphanage under pretty bad conditions prior to that.
I think a true RAD issue here is unlikely but it's not impossible. my take is she was a more difficult baby and e "mother" didn't want to deal.
They adopted her as a baby, and the mother claimed she had reactive attachment disorder? Isn't that something that usually affects older kids who are adopted out of orphanages or who spend years in multiple foster homes?
If that claim is even true...it sounds like the mother just made no effort to bond with Emily and then abandoned her because she "didn't fit in." Nice. Poor kid.
Baby just means under a year. Based on when she was adopted (1996) She was likely 8-14 months when they got her and would've been in an orphanage under pretty bad conditions prior to that.
I think a true RAD issue here is unlikely but it's not impossible. my take is she was a more difficult baby and e "mother" didn't want to deal.
Or the father was the one that wanted the baby and when he died she lost interest.
Baby just means under a year. Based on when she was adopted (1996) She was likely 8-14 months when they got her and would've been in an orphanage under pretty bad conditions prior to that.
I think a true RAD issue here is unlikely but it's not impossible. my take is she was a more difficult baby and e "mother" didn't want to deal.
Or the father was the one that wanted the baby and when he died she lost interest.
Or, the child was adopted by a woman who wanted a trendy Chinese girl and treated her as an accessory. And that in turn led to RAD.
I tend to believe the first part. Except that I also tend to believe she didn't actually have RAD, since she didn't seem to have these problems after she was adopted by the second couple. RAD isn't exactly something you just get over.
kansas; but I think that's pretty much the same all around. Where are you?
It's not like that everywhere. In NYS if a child is adopted by someone outside of the family it severs any right of inheritance the child would have had from the biological family unless they're specifically mentioned by name in the will. There are cases of grandparents leaving their estates to their "grandchildren" as a class, fully meaning for that to include the chid that had been adopted out of the family but remained close to it and the courts said too bad, he's not a grandchild.
Key in the case at hand is that her intrest vested prior to the second adoption.
That is really interesting. My adoption took place in FL but we never severed ties with bio dad's family, just him. I still spent every summer with my grandparents in MN. If they had anything to give though, I am sure my cousins and I (there are only 5 grandkids total) would be named specifically.
kansas; but I think that's pretty much the same all around. Where are you?
It's not like that everywhere. In NYS if a child is adopted by someone outside of the family it severs any right of inheritance the child would have had from the biological family unless they're specifically mentioned by name in the will. There are cases of grandparents leaving their estates to their "grandchildren" as a class, fully meaning for that to include the chid that had been adopted out of the family but remained close to it and the courts said too bad, he's not a grandchild.
Key in the case at hand is that her intrest vested prior to the second adoption.
When her (adoptive) father died, her interest in the trust became hers. No matter whether she was adopted, sold or given away, the money was hers and couldn't revert to the (I have no words for what I think of the creature who adopted her and then "rehomed" her but she's hella-better off) no matter what tricks she tried to disinherit her (or the other family members because I assume the sibs may have also stood aside or actively tried to disinherit their "non-biological sibling"). And by disallowing her inheritance, what's to stop future parents from adopting their trophy kids out in order to keep a higher percentage of a large estate, right? "Yeah, she was his kid but she was adopted by those plebes over there so she's not a member of this family anymore and I get the cash, neener neener."
I didn't realize Party City (and subsidiaries, of course) was worth so much. $250M+. Wow, we do spend a lot on fun times.
On another note, the school looks amazing. And for $120K/year it better be.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
Does that right override the parents right to leave their money to whoever they want, even if that includes none of their children?
Sent from my T-Mobile myTouch using proboards
No. I'm allowed to disinherit a child, but I have to mention it in the will. If I had had a child that I then placed for adoption, say his name is Bill, that child has rights under the law to a portion of my estate unless I specifically disinherit that child. So if I were to say, for example, in my will that I leave my entire estate to my children Sally and Becky, and don't mention Bill, Bill can petition the court for a portion of my estate (that would be one third of the total amount going to the children). If I want to make that not happen, I have to say that I leave my entire estate to my two children Sally and Becky, and that I leave nothing to my biological child Bill who was placed for adoption in 1975.
Most people don't think to specifically disinherit their children that they placed for adoption, and most people don't tell their lawyers that such a person might exist.
It makes a big kaboom in stepparent adoption matters.
I bet this is something nobody thinks to mention to the young woman they encourage to choose adoption over having an abortion.
You kinda hope karma is real and this woman spends the rest of her life in a miserable state and then gets dumped into a care home where no one visits her.