In Re TWM
18 A.3d 815
| D.C. | 2011Background
- T.E. was born to S.E. and T.B. on Oct. 9, 2001 and placed in foster care Nov. 29, 2001.
- A.E., S.E.'s cousin, sought custody of T.E. and began visits Jan. 2003; T.W.M. also filed a competing adoption petition.
- Birth parents consented to A.E.'s adoption in 2003; T.W.M. had cared for T.E. since 2002 with a brief disruption.
- T.E. resided with T.W.M. from 2002–May 2005, was later placed elsewhere, but returned to T.W.M. around 2006.
- In 2006 the trial court granted T.W.M.'s adoption petition and denied A.E.'s petition; this court remanded for reconsideration of parental consent and best interests.
- After a 2009 trial, the court again found that adoption by A.E. would be contrary to T.E.'s best interests, and did not require direct questioning of T.E. about her preferences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supports best interests finding | A.E. contends removal from T.W.M. harms T.E. | T.W.M. argues T.E. thrived with current placement; best interests support adoption by A.E. | Yes; record supports best interests finding and no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the court properly considered T.E.'s preferred caregiver | A.E. argues trial court ignored T.E.'s preference in record. | Court weighed evidence of preference and stability; not required to interview directly. | Court properly considered evidence of T.E.'s preference and did not err. |
| Whether the court abused discretion by not questioning T.E. directly or indirectly | GAL urged direct/indirect questioning to ascertain preference. | Experts advised against questioning; direct inquiry unnecessary and potentially harmful. | No abuse; court acted within discretion in handling child's preference. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.J., 666 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1995) (best interests standard; termination-like factors applied to guardianship decisions)
- In re S.M., 985 A.2d 413 (D.C. 2009) (conduct of best-interests review; weighing factors)
- In re I.B., 631 A.2d 1225 (D.C. 1993) (sufficiency of findings; defer to trial court's reasoning)
- In re A.R., 679 A.2d 470 (D.C. 1996) (court's consideration of child’s opinion; limits on evidentiary duties)
- In re J.D.W., 711 A.2d 826 (D.C. 1998) (flexible best-interests standard; rational connection from findings)
- In re T.W.M., 964 A.2d 595 (D.C. 2009) (reaffirmed weight given to parental preference and standard of review)