41 A.3d 502
D.C.2012Background
- E.P. is an unwed, noncustodial father who learned of A.H. in 2009 but had limited contact before DNA established paternity in 2010.
- A.H. was born to K.H. in 2007 and removed from her mother’s care, eventually placed with a foster family, C.L.O., who sought to adopt.
- CFSA and others pursued permanency goals toward adoption; E.P. was identified as father but initially failed to assert timely custody rights.
- K.H. consented to A.H.’s adoption in early 2010; the court later employed a waiver of E.P.’s consent after a show-cause hearing.
- The magistrate judge found clear and convincing evidence that waiver was in A.H.’s best interests; the trial judge affirmed, and the adoption decree was entered.
- Appellate review involved whether the waiver of consent was proper and whether E.P. had a constitutionally protected “opportunity interest” in custody under DC law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether waiver of consent was proper in A.H.’s best interests. | E.P. argues he had opportunity interest and should be presumed custodian. | C.L.O. argues strong bond with A.H. and best interests favor adoption. | Waiver supported; adoption affirmed. |
| Whether E.P. grasped his opportunity interest. | E.P. maintained he sought custody after learning of paternity. | State intervention and delays show failure to pursue opportunity. | E.P. did not grasp the opportunity interest. |
| What standard of proof applies if opportunity interest is not grasped? | Not explicitly needed if opportunity interest presumed. | Clear and convincing standard should apply to waiver. | Court applied clear and convincing standard to waiver. |
| Whether DC adoption statutes require a separate finding on opportunity interest for waivers. | Opportunity interest findings are necessary for due process. | Not necessary if record supports waiver under best interests. | Not necessary to remand; evidence supported waiver. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.G., 831 A.2d 992 (D.C.2003) (clear and convincing standard when withholding consent)
- In re J.D.W., 711 A.2d 826 (D.C.1998) (consent withheld—clear and convincing evidence standard)
- In re S.M., 985 A.2d 413 (D.C.2009) (presumption to parent can be overridden by best interests with clear and convincing evidence)
- Appeal of H.R., 581 A.2d 1141 (D.C.1990) (presumption for fit parent; opportunity interest factors)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parens patriae; parental rights require clear and convincing evidence)
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1983) (opportunity interest discussed in due process context)