E.P.L. v. J.L.-A.
190 A.3d 1002
| D.C. | 2018Background
- M.L.P., born in Guatemala in 2009, came to the U.S. in 2014 and was reunited with her mother; mother filed for sole custody and SIJS factual findings in 2016.
- Father left Guatemala when M.L.P. was an infant, had not seen her since, and did not support or visit after her arrival in the U.S.; he appeared pro se and conceded gaps in contact and support.
- Superior Court awarded sole legal and primary physical custody to the mother and heard evidence on SIJS criteria; the father did not materially contest the abandonment or best-interest assertions.
- Trial court found the age and custody placement SIJS requirements satisfied but declined to find (a) that reunification with the father was not viable due to abandonment and (b) that return to Guatemala would be contrary to M.L.P.’s best interests.
- Mother appealed; this court reviews de novo whether the third (reunification not viable due to abandonment) and fourth (return not in minor’s best interest) SIJS criteria were met.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reunification with father is not viable due to abandonment | Mother: father abandoned M.L.P.; he has not supported, visited, or had a caretaking relationship, so reunification with him is not viable | Father: (implicitly) sought shared custody and claimed barriers (transportation, difficulty locating child) but made no effective effort to reunify | Court: Trial court applied too demanding a standard; record shows abandonment and reunification with father is not viable due to his long absence and lack of support or relationship |
| Whether return to Guatemala would be contrary to the child’s best interests | Mother: child is thriving in U.S. with mother and would have no caregiver in Guatemala; thus return is not in child’s best interest | Father: no meaningful argument presented on return; trial court sought more evidence | Court: Given finding that it is in child’s best interest to remain with mother in U.S., logically return to Guatemala is not in child’s best interest; remand for amended SIJS findings |
Key Cases Cited
- J.U. v. J.C.P.C., 176 A.3d 136 (D.C. 2018) (explains SIJS criteria and that state courts assess viability of reunification by practical, fact-based inquiry)
- In re C.G.H., 75 A.3d 166 (D.C. 2013) (discusses standard of appellate review for SIJS factual-findings motions)
- In re Ta.L., 149 A.3d 1060 (D.C. 2016) (addresses presumption favoring placement with a fit natural parent in best-interest analysis)
- De Guardado v. Menjivar, 901 N.W.2d 243 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017) (recognizes that custodial placement with one parent may suffice for SIJS where reunification with the other parent is not viable due to abandonment)