In Re Adoption/Guardianship of Cross H.
24 A.3d 747
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Cross H. was born prematurely in 2007 with HIV/hepatitis-C exposure due to mother's drug/alcohol history and had significant medical needs at birth.
- He was adjudicated a CINA and placed in foster care, later with a non-relative foster family after relatives could not continue.
- Paternity was established in 2009, after which the permanency plan shifted toward reunification with the father, who had significant compliance issues.
- In 2009 the court ordered a possible placement with the paternal grandmother, Barbara J., but home and bonding studies were negative for long-term viability.
- By March 2010 the court adopted a permanency plan of non-relative adoption; a TPR petition was filed while an appeal in the CINA case was pending, and the juvenile court ultimately terminated parental rights and granted guardianship to the Department.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding that (i) pendency of the CINA appeal did not bar the TPR, (ii) placement with the paternal grandmother was properly considered in CINA, not as a TPR issue, and (iii) the TPR determination was supported by the statutory best-interests analysis under FL § 5-323.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TPR proceeded while a CINA appeal was pending. | Appellants argued the pending CINA appeal barred TPR. | Court should proceed; CINA and TPR are independent. | No error; TPR proceedings can occur during CINA appeal. |
| Whether the court erred in not ordering custody to the paternal grandmother. | Grandmother placement should have been considered and possibly ordered. | Placement focus at TPR should be on parents' fitness, not relative suitability. | Court properly limited TPR focus to parental fitness; grandmother placement was decided in CINA context. |
| Whether termination of parental rights was proper under FL § 5-323. | Parental rights deserve strong presumption; termination should be rare. | Evidence shows parental unfitness or exceptional circumstances outweigh presumption. | Yes; the court’s findings were supported; termination upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Rashawn H., 402 Md. 477 (2007) (guides careful consideration of best-interest factors and explicit findings)
- In re Emileigh F., 355 Md. 198 (1999) (implicates limits on post-appeal juvenile court actions;Emileigh F. cautions against conflicting with appellate proceedings)
- Washington County Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Clark, 296 Md. 190 (1983) (premised on best interests and statutory framework for guardianship decisions)
- In re Abiagail C., 138 Md.App. 570 (2001) (clear-and-convincing standard; review of best-interest determinations)
- In re Adoption No. 09598, 77 Md.App. 511 (1989) (limits of parental rights termination review under best interests)