In re: Adoption/G'ship of H.W.
170 A.3d 882
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2017Background
- H.W., born 2012, never met his biological father (M.W.); father was incarcerated at birth and later incarcerated again. H.W. has lived with foster parents (Mr. and Mrs. M.) since June 2014 and is bonded to them; his two half-siblings also live there.
- Mother had multiple neglectful incidents (near-drowning of H.W. in 2012; serious burns to a half‑sibling in 2014); Department of Social Services obtained shelter care and placement for the children.
- Father inconsistently communicated with the Department, missed opportunities to visit, failed drug treatment, violated probation, and was reincarcerated; he expressed a desire to be in H.W.’s life but had no concrete plans or placement resources.
- Department filed to terminate parental rights (TPR) in October 2015; Mother consented; Father initially consented then withdrew; a TPR hearing occurred Jan–Feb 2017.
- Juvenile court found Father not proved unfit under FL § 5‑323(d) but concluded, by clear and convincing evidence, that “exceptional circumstances” justified TPR and relied in part on Ross v. Hoffman custody factors (including factors addressing the effect of a change of custody).
- Court of Special Appeals vacated and remanded because the juvenile court erroneously relied on custody‑specific Ross factors (e.g., emotional effect of a change in custody; stability of future custody) in the TPR exceptional‑circumstances analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court applied the proper factors to find "exceptional circumstances" for TPR | DSS: Ross factors are relevant; many overlap with FL § 5‑323(d) statutory factors | Father: Court relied on custody factors inappropriate for TPR scope | Court: Using custody‑only Ross factors was legal error; those custody factors do not belong in TPR exceptional‑circumstances analysis; vacated and remanded |
| Whether exceptional circumstances existed here given Father was not found unfit and had imminent release | DSS: Exceptional circumstances can exist apart from formal unfitness findings; child's stability with foster family supports TPR | Father: Not unfit, imminent release within ~13 months, inadequate services to facilitate reunification | Court: Did not decide on merits because error in applying custody factors required remand; left open that same result could follow if proper factors applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. Hoffman, 280 Md. 172 (Md. 1977) (articulates factors for custody disputes between a parent and third party)
- In re Adoption/Guardianship of Rashawn H., 402 Md. 477 (Md. 2007) (distinguishes custody disputes from TPR proceedings; exceptional‑circumstances inquiry differs)
- In re Adoption of Ta’Niya C., 417 Md. 90 (Md. 2010) (trial court must consider FL § 5‑323(d) factors when assessing exceptional circumstances)
- In re Adoption of Jayden G., 433 Md. 50 (Md. 2013) (appellate courts review legal conclusions de novo in TPR appeals)