In re: Adoption/G'ship of C.A. & D.A.
168 A.3d 1088
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2017Background
- Father (appellant) was deported in 2010 and later re-entered the U.S. illegally; he was arrested in December 2013 and remained incarcerated in federal prison through the October 2016 termination hearing and faced deportation upon release in July 2017.
- Mother voluntarily relinquished her parental rights; the children, D.A. and C.A., experienced neglect and alleged sexual abuse while living with Mother and others, prompting child welfare involvement and eventual foster placement in 2014.
- The children were placed with initial relatives, then fostered by Melanie R., with whom they bonded; permanency plan shifted from reunification to adoption after findings Mother made no progress.
- The Department repeatedly attempted to contact and provide services to Father (phone participation, mailed service agreements, interpreters, efforts to locate relatives), but Father returned little signed paperwork, had minimal contact with the children, and offered no feasible U.S.-based caretaker.
- Evidence showed the children were thriving with the prospective adoptive foster parent (stable home, school, therapy) and expressed no desire to maintain a relationship with Father.
- The juvenile court terminated Father’s parental rights, finding (inter alia) Father’s incarceration and impending deportation, lack of meaningful contact or resources, and the children’s settled adjustment justified termination; the circuit court judgment was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination of Father’s parental rights was in children’s best interests | Termination not justified; record fails to show continuation of relationship would be detrimental; Department did not provide adequate services during incarceration | Termination was justified under FL §5‑323(d); children need stable, permanent home and Department provided reasonable services | Affirmed — court found by clear and convincing evidence exceptional circumstances/unfitness and best interests favored termination |
| Whether Department’s services to incarcerated Father were reasonable | Services inadequate; service agreements vague and not meaningfully provided | Department made reasonable, timely efforts given Father’s out‑of‑state incarceration | Affirmed — court found services reasonable and further services futile due to incarceration/deportation |
| Whether incarceration/deportation alone can justify termination | Father: incarceration or temporary inability to care does not automatically justify termination | State: incarceration and likely deportation can be critical when they prevent long‑term care and create suspended animation for child’s permanency | Affirmed — incarceration and deportation were material factors here because Father could not provide foreseeable care and made no feasible plans |
| Whether bond with foster/adoptive parent improperly outweighed Father’s liberty interest | Father: child’s bond with foster parent cannot be dispositive over parental liberty interest | State: children’s adjustment and bond are relevant among factors showing exceptional circumstances | Affirmed — bond and stability were among factors rebutting presumption for parental custody and supporting termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption/Guardianship of Rashawn H., 402 Md. 477 (presumption favoring parental custody can be rebutted by exceptional circumstances)
- In re Jasmine D., 217 Md. App. 718 (court must consider FL §5‑323(d) factors and make specific findings)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (termination of parental rights requires heightened procedural protections and clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Adoption/Guardianship No. 10941, 335 Md. 99 (child’s best interest paramount over parental interest when terminating rights)
- Boswell v. Boswell, 352 Md. 204 (child’s best interests may take precedence over parental liberty)
- In re Adoption/Guardianship No. J970013, 128 Md. App. 242 (incarceration can be a critical factor in TPR when parent cannot provide long‑term care)
- In re Mark M., 365 Md. 687 (parental rights are not absolute; State has interest in child welfare)
- In re Adoption/Guardianship No. 87A262, 323 Md. 12 (each FL §5‑323(d) factor should be addressed specifically)