PR Supreme Court allows biological father to retain parental rights after single‑parent adoption
By THE STAR STAFF
A divided Puerto Rico Supreme Court has ruled that, under specific circumstances, a child may retain a legal bond with a biological parent even after being adopted by a single adoptive parent.
The decision, issued in 2026 TSPR 100 and authored by Associate Justice Erick V. Kolthoff Caraballo, marks a significant shift in how adoption law is interpreted and has already prompted strong concurring and dissenting opinions within the high court.
The case centers on a young girl whose mother died in a car accident eight months after giving birth. Following the tragedy, the child’s grandmother adopted her without notifying the biological father, who had not yet legally recognized the child and therefore did not hold patria potestad. Less than 30 days after the adoption decree, the father filed a filiation action and was judicially recognized as the child’s parent. He later sought to establish paternofilial relations, which the trial court granted. The grandmother appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling, and the matter ultimately reached the Supreme Court.
In its analysis, the majority explained that the Civil Code of 2020 generally provides that adoption extinguishes all legal ties between an adopted child and their biological family. However, Article 588 creates an exception when a child with a single filiation (filiación) is adopted by one person who is not the biological parent. According to the court, this exception applies squarely to the facts of the case: the child had only one legal filiation at the time of adoption, and the adoptive mother acted alone. Because the biological father’s filiation had not yet been established when the adoption occurred, the court concluded that his subsequent recognition did not extinguish his parental rights.
Justice Kolthoff wrote that the ruling allows the child “the opportunity to grow within a family environment completed by her biological father and her adoptive mother.” The majority emphasized that the number of adoptive parents is the starting point for determining whether biological ties survive an adoption and reiterated that courts must always prioritize the best interest of the child. Judges, the opinion stated, must consider the interests of biological parents, close relatives, individuals with whom the child has lived, the adoptive parent’s family, and society’s interest in stable family structures.
The majority relied on Ex parte J.A.A. (1976), a case that permitted a single adoptive parent to coexist with a biological parent. Although decided under a different legal framework, the court described it as a relevant precedent supporting the idea that adoption by one person does not necessarily sever all biological ties.
Associate Justice Camille Rivera Pérez issued a concurring opinion agreeing with the outcome but stressing that full adoption remains the general rule. She argued that the Court should reaffirm the principles established in Beníquez v. Vargas (2012), which govern cases where a later filiation seeks only genetic recognition after a consolidated adoption.
Associate Justice Luis Estrella Martínez also concurred but criticized the majority for relying on outdated jurisprudence rooted in traditional notions of the nuclear family. He argued that the court should have distanced itself from precedents that fail to reflect modern constitutional protections for diverse family structures, including adoption by same‑sex couples.
Chief Justice Maite Oronoz Rodríguez issued a forceful dissent joined by Associate Justice Ángel Colón Pérez. She warned that the ruling dismantles the interpretive framework that has long ensured stability and finality in adoption proceedings. Oronoz wrote that the decision introduces uncertainty incompatible with the security that family law requires and risks undermining relationships that the legal system has historically protected with permanence.
Justice Colón Pérez filed a separate dissent, noting that the case’s unusual facts did not justify issuing a binding opinion with broad implications. He cautioned that the ruling may hinder recognition of contemporary family forms in Puerto Rico and described the majority’s approach as restrictive and anachronistic.
The biological father was represented by attorneys Lourdes M. Ortiz Pagán and Mariana E. Madera Del Valle. The adoptive grandmother was represented by attorney Andrés J. Ramos Cámara.
