In Re Clo
41 A.3d 502
| D.C. | 2012Background
- E.P., an unwed, noncustodial father, learned of potential paternity in mid-2009 but had limited contact with the child until DNA confirmed paternity in March 2010.
- A.H. was born October 6, 2007; CFSA removed her from K.H. and placed her in foster care, with ongoing efforts to locate E.P. and determine permanency goals.
- Permanency initially aimed at reunification with K.H., then shifted to adoption; C.L.O. expressed interest in adopting A.H. and was providing care since January 2009.
- K.H. consented to the adoption at the January 2010 hearing; the court subsequently sought to locate E.P., served him with TPR and adoption notices, and arranged visits after paternity was established.
- In October 2010, the magistrate judge held a show-cause hearing to determine whether E.P.’s consent to adoption should be waived in A.H.’s best interests, culminating in a March 2011 Findings and Order Waiving Consent.
- The trial court affirmed, and the DC Court of Appeals ultimately upheld the waiver of consent and the final adoption decree for C.L.O.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether waiver of consent was appropriate in the child’s best interests | E.P. contends best interests not satisfied; failure to seize opportunity weakens waiver. | C.L.O. and CFSA argue strongest bond with pre-adoptive family supports waiver and adoption. | Waiver upheld; adoption granted in child’s best interests. |
| Whether E.P. grasped his opportunity interest to obtain custody | E.P. asserts he had a meaningful chance to pursue custody and thus a presumption in his favor. | Court can waive regardless of opportunity interest if best interests demand adoption. | Court found no grasp of opportunity interest; but waiver still supported by clear and convincing evidence. |
| What standard of proof applies to waiver when opportunity is not grasped | If opportunity not grasped, standard may differ; burden analysis unclear. | Clear and convincing evidence should apply to waiver as an alternative to termination. | Clear and convincing evidence governs waiver even if opportunity interest not grasped. |
| Whether the trial court properly weighed the §16-2353 factors in determining best interests | Waiver and adoption should reflect the child’s attachment to E.P. and risks of disruption. | Family bonds with pre-adoptive home outweighed paternal attachment, and child’s needs favored stability. | Factors weighed in favor of adoption; no abuse of discretion found. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.M., 985 A.2d 413 (D.C. 2009) (presumption must yield to clear and convincing evidence in best interests)
- In re J.G., 831 A.2d 992 (D.C. 2003) (nonparent adoption requires clear and convincing evidence that consent is withheld contrary to best interests)
- In re C.A.B., 4 A.3d 890 (D.C. 2010) (credibility and weighing of expert testimony for best interests and attachment concerns)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parens patriae interests require strict proof for termination of parental rights)
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1983) (opportunity interest may affect due process protections in adoption)
- Appeal of H.R., 581 A.2d 1141 (D.C. 1990) (factors for evaluating opportunity interest and notice to putative fathers)