In re: Petition of J.J. T.R.
111 A.3d 1038
| D.C. | 2015Background
- J.R., born 2008, lived with prospective adoptive/foster parent J.J. from 8 months old through the adoption hearing; placed in J.J.’s care after D.C. child-welfare interventions concerning T.R.’s parenting.
- J.J. petitioned to adopt; a magistrate found by clear and convincing evidence that biological parents T.R. (mother) and J.B. (father) withheld consent contrary to J.R.’s best interests and granted the adoption.
- Testimony supporting adoption included three social workers and Dr. Seth King (psychologist), who evaluated T.R. and J.J. and observed parent–child interactions.
- Findings emphasized J.J.’s long-term, stable care (meeting medical/educational needs, integrated family life) and J.R.’s attachment to J.J.; cited T.R.’s inconsistent visitation, mental-health issues, parenting missteps (including a serious burn incident) and lack of insight into treatment.
- J.B. had limited contact (including incarceration), minimal financial support, and did not develop a custodial relationship after release; court found he failed to timely grasp his opportunity interest.
- The associate judge affirmed the magistrate, concluding the record contained the ‘‘equivalent findings’’ necessary to rebut the presumption favoring placement with fit natural parents and to waive parental consent under D.C. Code § 16-304(e).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (T.R.) | Defendant's Argument (J.J./Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient clear and convincing evidence to waive T.R.’s consent under § 16-304(e) | Insufficient evidence; magistrate failed to make required factual findings under § 16-2353(b) and to rebut presumption favoring placement with biological parent | Record shows long-term stability with J.J., T.R.’s impairments and inconsistent visitation, and expert testimony supporting adoption | Waiver affirmed — court found clear and convincing evidence to waive T.R.’s consent |
| Whether the trial court was required to make an explicit finding of parental unfitness before rebutting the presumption in favor of biological parents | T.R. argues the court failed to expressly find unfitness, requiring remand | Court may make ‘‘equivalent findings’’ demonstrating lack of capacity/motivation instead of using the word ‘‘unfit’’ | No remand; court’s factual findings constituted equivalent findings rebutting the presumption |
| Whether J.B.’s consent could be waived without an explicit finding of unfitness and without granting his placement request | J.B. (through filings) contended magistrate didn’t consider placing J.R. with him or find him unfit | Father failed to timely grasp his opportunity interest; limited contact and support showed weaker bond than with J.J. | Waiver of J.B.’s consent affirmed; no explicit unfitness finding required when record supports waiver |
| Whether the child’s (J.R.’s) preference was adequately considered despite young age | T.R. asserts child’s age and calling both women "mommy" negate an inference of preference | Court may infer child’s preference from behavior, expert observations, and statements to professionals; direct testimony not required | Court permissibly inferred J.R.’s preference for staying with J.J.; this factor weighed for adoption |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.L.O., 41 A.3d 502 (D.C. 2012) (describing ‘‘opportunity interest’’ for noncustodial fathers and standards for waiver/rebuttal)
- In re J.C.F., 73 A.3d 1007 (D.C. 2013) (addressing waiver of parental consent standards)
- In re J.G., 831 A.2d 992 (D.C. 2003) (trial court discretion in determining whether parental consent withheld contrary to best interests)
- In re D.H., 917 A.2d 112 (D.C. 2007) (statutory factors for best-interests determination in termination/adoption context)
- In re J.L., 884 A.2d 1074 (D.C.) (stability of caretaker and need for permanence weigh in favor of adoption)
- In re Petition of W.D., 988 A.2d 456 (D.C. 2010) (weighing caregiver’s bond and provision for child’s needs against biological parent’s failure to pursue services)
- In re T.W.M., 18 A.3d 815 (D.C. 2011) (court may rely on statements to professionals and behavior rather than direct testimony to assess child’s preference)