In re C.G.H.
2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 597
| D.C. | 2013Background
- C.G.H. seeks adoption of non-biological child F.A. and SIJS eligibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J).
- Family Court denied SIJS findings, ruling F.A. was not dependent and could not be placed under court-appointed custody.
- Adoption petition involves District of Columbia law; adoption decree would render adoptive parent as legal parent.
- F.A. was born in Guatemala (1998); lived with mother A.V. and maternal relatives; A.V. migrated to the U.S. and later cared for F.A.
- R.F.A. (F.A.’s father) died in Guatemala; allegations of abuse by R.F.A. and risk upon return to Guatemala were part of SIJS considerations.
- District statutes provide extensive procedures for adoption, including investigations and clearances; Family Court referred CFSA for investigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does adoption satisfy 'placed under the custody' trigger for SIJS? | C.G.H. contends adoption makes F.A. placed under court-appointed custody. | Family Court held no such custody would exist if adoption granted because F.A. would remain with mother. | Yes; adoption satisfies placement/commitment to a court-appointed custodian. |
| Does pending adoption petition render F.A. dependent on a juvenile court for SIJS? | C.G.H. argues pendency makes F.A. dependent under state law. | Court found no dependency requiring intervention to ensure care. | Pending adoption does not foreclose dependency under SIJS; adoption status satisfies eligibility. |
| What is the correct interpretation of SIJS eligibility after adoption in DC law? | Adoption creates legal commitment under SIJS § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i). | District court case law misapplied; dependency placement remains unresolved. | Adoption of F.A. by C.G.H. satisfies the first eligibility prong; remand for remaining SIJS determinations. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Emma M., 74 A.D.3d 968 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010) (adoption can fulfill SIJS dependency/placement requirement)
- In re Hex Ting C., 969 N.Y.S.2d 150 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013) (guardianship or custody petitions support SIJS eligibility)
- D.C. v. A.B.C., 8 A.3d 260 (N.J. Ct. Ch. Div. 2010) (distinguishes adoption-related custody claims in district context)
- In re C.L.O., 41 A.3d 502 (D.C. 2012) (de novo review of legal standards in SIJS context)
- Luck v. District of Columbia, 617 A.2d 509 (D.C. 1992) (interpretation when related statutes concern same subject)