Opinion ID: 2367661
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Such Claims May Be Raised on Direct Appeal

Text: One of the obvious concerns that must be considered in recognizing a statutory right to the effective assistance of counsel in this context is the possibility that, as in criminal cases, it will lead to a seemingly-endless round of collateral attacks. Finality in the resolution of parental rights termination cases should be achieved as expeditiously as possible, consistent with due process. Geist, 796 P.2d at 1200. There are important differences between adoption cases and criminal cases, however. First, there is no statutory provision, comparable to D.C.Code § 23-110 (2001), permitting a collateral attack upon an adoption decree. Title 16 of the D.C.Code ... contains no procedural format for moving to set aside a final decree of adoption. In re M.N.M., 605 A.2d 921, 929 (D.C.1992). Second, the powerful demand for finality in adoption proceedings [is] reflected in D.C.Code § 16-310, ... [which] by its terms is intended to close the door on attempts to invalidate final adoption decrees after one year. Id. at 925. [8] Concern for expedition and finality has led many jurisdictions to require that these claims of ineffectiveness be raised on direct appeal. According to Justice Calkins of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, who conducted a comprehensive analysis of this issue, [t]he most common vehicle for raising an ineffectiveness claim in a parental-termination case is the direct appeal of the termination order. Calkins, supra note 4, at 200. She concluded [t]he most persuasive reason in favor of direct appeal is that, in most cases, it will consume the least amount of time. Id. at 207. In the absence of a statute directing otherwise, we hold that a direct appeal is the proper vehicle for raising a claim that appointed counsel has been ineffective in a termination of parental rights proceeding. See B.R., 929 A.2d at 1040 ([W]e direct that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in termination cases be raised on direct appeal); Geist, 796 P.2d at 1201 (Because of the importance of expeditious resolution of termination proceedings, and absent statutes providing otherwise, we hold that any challenges to the adequacy of appointed trial counsel in such proceedings must be reviewed on direct appeal.). [9] To promote expedited review of ineffectiveness claims, we require appellate counsel to raise the issue by motion as soon as possible, rather than waiting for the briefing stage of the appeal. Any such motion must be filed within one year following the date the final decree became effective. D.C.Code § 16-310 (2001). When the record permits, we will rule on such motions in an expedited fashion; on other occasions, we will remand the record for further inquiry while the rest of the appeal proceeds. Moreover, recognizing the importance of finality in the context of proceedings to terminate parental rights, neither we nor the Superior Court will consider such a claim after the direct appeal has been concluded. [10] The Supreme Court of New Jersey has aptly described what we ordinarily will expect from an appellant who seeks to raise an ineffectiveness claim on direct appeal: [A]ppellate counsel must provide a detailed exposition of how the trial lawyer fell short and a statement regarding why the result would have been different had the lawyer's performance not been deficient. That will include the requirement of an evidentiary proffer in appropriate cases. For example, if the failure to produce expert or lay witnesses is claimed, appellant will be required to supply certifications from such witnesses regarding the substance of the omitted evidence along with arguments regarding its relevance. B.R., 929 A.2d at 1040. To borrow from what we said in a related context, the parent must set forth in detail a persuasive case.... Watson v. United States, 536 A.2d 1056, 1060 (D.C.1987) (en banc) (establishing procedure for raising a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel). [C]onclusory assertions are not sufficient. The movant must give `chapter and verse.' Id. We anticipate that, [i]n many cases, the issue will be resolvable on the appeal record alone. B.R., 929 A.2d at 1040. In other circumstances, a hearing and findings of fact will be necessary to amplify the record. In those cases, we will remand the record for a prompt hearing and decision with this court retaining jurisdiction pending the trial court's findings and a return of the record. Watson, 536 A.2d at 1061.