143 A.3d 94
D.C.2016Background
- A.H., born Feb. 19, 2010, suffered multiple unexplained fractures and facial bruising while living with her mother L.H. in maternal grandmother M.V.H.’s home; physicians concluded the injuries were abusive.
- A.H. was removed from L.H.’s care in March 2011 and placed with foster mother L.F.G. in April 2011; a neglect adjudication followed and the permanency goal was changed to adoption in April 2012.
- L.F.G. filed to adopt in May 2012; M.V.H. filed a competing adoption petition in Feb. 2013, later joined by L.H.’s formal consent to M.V.H.’s petition.
- After a 26-day bench trial, the magistrate judge found by clear and convincing evidence that M.V.H. was unfit to parent A.H. (placing A.H. with M.V.H. would endanger her) and that L.F.G. was fit; he granted adoption to L.F.G. and waived parental consents.
- L.H. and M.V.H. appealed, arguing (inter alia) lack of factual support for M.V.H.’s unfitness, that the court failed to apply the parental-presumption properly, and that CFSA unreasonably declined reunification services.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a firm factual basis to find M.V.H. unfit | M.V.H.: record lacks firm factual basis; judge failed to give weighty consideration to preferred custodian | District: evidence showed repeated unexplained injuries in M.V.H.’s home and caregiver indifference; placement would endanger child | Court: affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported finding of unfitness and that placement with M.V.H. would be contrary to A.H.’s best interests |
| Whether court honored birth-parent presumption favoring placement with natural parent or preferred custodian | L.H.: court failed to apply presumption that placement with natural parent is best unless parent proven unfit; requested explicit fitness findings | District: L.H. consented to M.V.H.’s adoption petition and did not seek custody; court was not required to make explicit fitness findings for a consenting parent in competing adoption context | Court: presumption need not be applied in same manner where birth parent consented to a third-party adoption; L.H. waived/forfeited request for a fitness determination; affirming outcome |
| Whether L.H. withheld consent to L.F.G.’s adoption contrary to A.H.’s best interests | L.H.: her withholding of consent was not shown to be contrary to A.H.’s best interests | District: A.H. had formed primary attachment to L.F.G.; removing her would cause significant harm; evidence supported finding that L.H. withheld consent contrary to child’s best interests | Court: affirmed — evidence supported conclusion that separating A.H. from L.F.G. would be harmful and that withholding consent harmed A.H.’s best interests |
| Whether CFSA unreasonably refused reunification services or prematurely changed goal to adoption | Appellants: CFSA failed to provide reunification services and prematurely recommended adoption | District: L.H. repeatedly denied need for services; CFSA could not address risk factors without cooperation; court appropriately considered evidence and timeline | Court: affirmed — record did not show unreasonable agency action; CFSA’s goal-change recommendation was supported by the evidence and lack of parental engagement |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.J., 111 A.3d 1038 (D.C. 2015) (appellate standard of review for adoption/child welfare decisions)
- In re S.L.G., 110 A.3d 1275 (D.C. 2015) (placement that would endanger child shows unfitness)
- In re T.J., 666 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1995) (weighty consideration owed to birth parent’s choice but can be overcome by clear and convincing evidence that placement is contrary to child’s best interest)
- In re L.L., 653 A.2d 873 (D.C. 1995) (court’s primary duty is to protect child from unwarranted danger; courts will not gamble with child’s future)
- In re K.D., 26 A.3d 772 (D.C. 2011) (clarifying clear-and-convincing standard)
- In re B.J., 917 A.2d 86 (D.C. 2007) (standards for appellate review of fact and law in child welfare cases)
- In re D.R.M., 570 A.2d 796 (D.C. 1990) (agency action creating premature presumption for adoption can be problematic)
- In re A.C., 597 A.2d 920 (D.C. 1991) (adoption not precluded solely because agency failed to reunify)