Glenda Del Carmen Benitez v. John Doe, 193 A.3d 134

Background

J.V.B., born in El Salvador in 2004, entered the U.S. in 2013 as an unaccompanied minor to live with her mother, who has resided in the U.S. since 2005.
The mother filed a custody action in D.C. Superior Court and sought a Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) predicate order asserting J.V.B. could not reunify with a parent due to abandonment, neglect, or abuse.
The mother first named a putative father (Walter Alvarado), but a paternity test excluded him; she then sued “John Doe” and obtained service by posting after diligent efforts to identify the biological father failed.
The trial court awarded the mother sole physical and legal custody and found reunification with the father not viable, but denied the SIJ finding because it concluded abandonment could not be established where paternity was unknown.
The mother appealed; the D.C. Court of Appeals concluded the trial court applied too demanding a legal standard for abandonment and remanded to enter an SIJ predicate finding that reunification with the father is not viable due to abandonment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an SIJ predicate finding may be based on abandonment when the parent’s identity or paternity is unknown	Mother: Abandonment can be found based on objective lack of parental involvement even if paternity is unestablished	Trial court/Defense: A parent must know of the child (established paternity) before an abandonment finding is permissible	Held: Court reversed — abandonment may be found without prior knowledge of parentage; requiring paternity is too demanding
Whether reunification with the father is "viable" under SIJ statute	Mother: Reunification is not practicable because the father never participated in the child’s upbringing and is unknown	Trial court/Defense: Lack of reunification is not shown to be due to abandonment given no proof father knew of child	Held: Court held reunification is not viable due to abandonment given the father’s total noninvolvement
Proper role and evidentiary burden of state juvenile court in SIJ predicate findings	Mother: State court should apply broad/realistic standard recognizing limited evidence available	Trial court/Defense: (Implicit) stricter scrutiny to ensure no collusion and to protect parental rights	Held: State courts should not impose insurmountable evidentiary burdens; USCIS, not state court, assesses bona fides
Whether the trial court conflated SIJ abandonment standard with termination-of-parental-rights standard	Mother: SIJ abandonment is distinct and broader than the termination context	Trial court/Defense: Applied standards and cases from termination proceedings	Held: Court agreed SIJ abandonment differs; trial court misapplied termination standards and must instead assess practicality of reunification in context

Key Cases Cited

J.U. v. J.C.P.C., 176 A.3d 136 (D.C. 2018) (distinguishes SIJ abandonment inquiry from termination proceedings and endorses a realistic, broad view of viability)
In re Je.A., 793 A.2d 447 (D.C. 2002) (abandonment test is objective: whether parent made reasonable efforts to maintain a parental relationship)
In re M.N.M., 605 A.2d 921 (D.C. 1992) (due process concerns in putative-father termination proceedings)
In re H.R. (Baby Boy C.), 581 A.2d 1141 (D.C. 1990) (addressing putative father rights in termination context)
Simbaina v. Bunay, 109 A.3d 191 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015) (state court’s role in SIJ is to identify abused/neglected/abandoned children, not vet worthiness)
In re Dany G., 117 A.3d 650 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015) (Congress expected limited corroborating evidence in SIJ cases; courts should not impose high evidentiary burdens)
Guardianship of Penate, 76 N.E.3d 960 (Mass. 2017) (finding nonviability of reunification where child never knew the father)
In re Erick M., 820 N.W.2d 639 (Neb. 2012) (absent parent’s abandonment may be shown where juvenile has never known that parent)