In Re Adoption/Guardianship of Cadence B.
417 Md. 146
| Md. | 2010Background
- Cadence, a three-year-old in CINA, has been in foster care with the Z family since she was ten months old.
- Petitioner father B has a long history of neglect and has been largely absent from Cadence's life, living in Pennsylvania for extended periods.
- Cadence was placed in foster care after reports of parental drug use and neglect; the Department sought permanency planning and eventual adoption.
- The juvenile court, after reviewing statutory factors, changed Cadence's plan from reunification to open adoption due to bond with the Z family and B's absence.
- The Department and Cadence's counsel moved to adopt the foster family; the court found it in Cadence's best interest to pursue permanency through open adoption.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding no abuse of discretion in moving Cadence toward open adoption to achieve permanency for the child.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the open adoption plan in Cadence's best interest under FL 5-525(f)(1)? | B argues the court relied on duration in foster care rather than best interests. | Court should consider all factors; reunification unlikely due to risk and distance. | Yes; open adoption aligned with Cadence's best interests under the statutory factors. |
| Did the court err by emphasizing time in foster care over other statutory factors? | B claims focus on length of separation misapplies best-interests standard. | Court properly weighed safety, attachments, and permanency needs. | No; court adequately considered all factors beyond time spent in care. |
| Did evidence support severing parental ties and permitting open adoption? | B asserts no imminent risk of harm if Cadence lived with him. | B's persistent absence and lack of meaningful contact justified adoption to provide permanence. | Yes; evidence showed reunification impracticable and open adoption served Cadence's welfare. |
| Was there abuse of discretion in evaluating parental fitness under Yve S. and related standards? | B relies on Alonza and McDermott to challenge focus on time. | Distinction: B chose to distance himself; those cases are distinguishable. | No; court correctly applied Yve S. and related standards to the facts. |
| Did ICPC and interstate placement limitations affect the decision? | B argued ICPC impeded reunification. | ICPC constraints applied; placement in PA implicated safety concerns. | No reversal; ICPC considerations supported maintaining Cadence in Maryland with open adoption. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551 (Md. 2003) (clear framework for best interests and abuse/neglect standards)
- In re Adoption/Guardianship of Rashawn H. and Tyrese H., 402 Md. 477 (Md. 2007) (reunification presumption and child welfare balancing)
- In re Adoption/Guardianship of Ta'Niya C., 417 Md. 90 (Md. 2010) (best interests as transcendent standard in permanency planning)
- In re Shirley B., 191 Md.App. 678 (Md. Ct. App. 2010) (primary consideration is the child's best interests in permanency decisions)
- Alonza D., Jr. v. Md. Dept. of Human Res., 412 Md. 442 (Md. 2010) (focus on time in foster care must be balanced with other factors; improper emphasis unlawful)