In re: Petition of S.L.G. & S.E.G. D.A.
110 A.3d 1275
| D.C. | 2015Background
- A.A., removed from mother D.A.’s care after serious infant injuries in 2010; D.A. stipulated to neglect and child was placed with foster parents S.L.G. and S.E.G.
- Court-ordered reunification services (drug testing, APRA, parenting classes, mental-health treatment); D.A. received financial and logistical assistance but had erratic visits, inconsistent compliance, and drug-test failures through early 2012.
- Psychological evaluation diagnosed mood disorder, ADHD, and cocaine abuse; evaluator (Dr. King) expressed substantial concerns about D.A.’s judgment, mental health, relapse risk, and likelihood of becoming fit in the foreseeable future.
- A.A. thrived in the foster home for ~2 years, bonded with petitioners and their family, received speech therapy, and showed developmental improvement.
- Magistrate judge found waiver of D.A.’s consent was in A.A.’s best interest and that petitioners were fit; associate judge affirmed. Neither judge made an explicit, express finding that D.A. was unfit or directly addressed the parental-presumption analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (D.A.) | Defendant's Argument (Petitioners/State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court improperly decided waiver by directly comparing parent and petitioners | Trial court relied on a de facto comparison and favored petitioners over mother | Magistrate focused on child’s best interests and petitioners’ fitness, not pure comparison | Court: No clear abuse but record lacks required explicit findings; remand needed to clarify analysis |
| Whether court failed to consider likelihood D.A. could become fit in foreseeable future | D.A. argued court ignored evidence of progress and possibility of future fitness | Petitioners argued D.A.’s long history of noncompliance and relapse risk made reunification unlikely and adoption preferred | Held: Court failed to make explicit findings on foreseeability of fitness; remand required |
| Whether the parental-presumption was applied and rebutted properly | D.A. argued presumption favoring a fit parent was not acknowledged or analyzed | Petitioners argued evidence (drug use, mental health, inconsistent visits) rebutted presumption | Held: Trial court did not explicitly incorporate or rebut parental presumption by clear and convincing evidence; remand required |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support waiver despite procedural defects | D.A. claimed insufficiency absent explicit fitness findings | Petitioners asserted ample evidence existed to support waiver on remand | Held: Evidence likely sufficient, but appellate court cannot infer necessary predicate findings; vacated and remanded for explicit findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (constitutional standard for termination of parental rights requires high evidentiary burden)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognition of parental liberty interest and presumption that fit parents act in child's best interest)
- In re C.O.W., 519 A.2d 711 (timely integration into stable home and limits on comparing parents to prospective adopters)
- In re C.T., 724 A.2d 590 (discussion of parental presumption and best-interest analysis in custody/TPR context)
- In re J.G., 831 A.2d 992 (risk of harm from disrupting long-term placement with prospective adoptive parents)
- In re S.M., 985 A.2d 413 (remand required when trial court failed to accord natural parent the presumption in favor of a fit parent)
- In re D.S., 88 A.3d 678 (reversal when parental presumption was not meaningfully weighed in neglect/custody decisions)