Opinion ID: 2054333
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: AdoptionStandard of Review

Text: Maryland Code (1984, 1999 Repl.Vol.), section 5-313 of the Family Law Article (FL) [19] mandates that the trial court follow the standard set forth therein when determining whether parental rights are to be terminated. That section reads, in part: (a) In general. A court may grant a decree of adoption or a decree of guardianship, without the consent of a natural parent otherwise required by §§ 5-311 and 5-317 of this subtitle, if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child to terminate the natural parent's rights as to the child and that: ... (2) in a prior juvenile proceeding, the child has been adjudicated to be a child in need of assistance, a neglected child, an abused child, or a dependent child; or ... (c) Required considerations. In determining whether it is in the best interest of the child to terminate a natural parent's rights as to the child in any case, except the case of an abandoned child, the court shall give: (1) primary consideration to the safety and health of the child; and (2) consideration to: (i) the timeliness, nature, and extent of the services offered by the child placement agency to facilitate reunion of the child with the natural parent; (ii) any social service agreement between the natural parent and the child placement agency, and the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under the agreement; (iii) the child's feelings toward and emotional ties with the child's natural parents, the child's siblings, and any other individuals who may significantly affect the child's best interest; (iv) the child's adjustment to home, school, and community; (v) the result of the effort the natural parent has made to adjust the natural parent's circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to be returned to the natural parent's home, including: 1. the extent to which the natural parent has maintained regular contact with the child under a plan to reunite the child with the natural parent, but the court may not give significant weight to any incidental visit, communication, or contribution; 2. if the natural parent is financially able, the payment of a reasonable part of the child's substitute physical care and maintenance; 3. the maintenance of regular communication by the natural parent with the custodian of the child; and 4. whether additional services would be likely to bring about a lasting parental adjustment so that the child could be returned to the natural parent within an ascertainable time, not exceeding 18 months from the time of placement, but the court may not consider whether the maintenance of the parent-child relationship may serve as an inducement for the natural parent's rehabilitation; and (vi) all services offered to the natural parent before the placement of the child, whether offered by the agency to which the child is committed or by other agencies or professionals. (d) Considerations following juvenile adjudication. (1) In determining whether it is in the best interest of the child to terminate a natural parent's rights as to the child in a case involving a child who has been adjudicated to be a child in need of assistance, a neglected child, an abused child, or a dependent child, the court shall consider the factors in subsection (c) of this section and whether any of the following continuing or serious conditions or acts exist: (i) the natural parent has a disability that renders the natural parent consistently unable to care for the immediate and ongoing physical or psychological needs of the child for long periods of time; (ii) the natural parent has committed acts of abuse or neglect toward any child in the family; (iii) the natural parent has failed repeatedly to give the child adequate food, clothing, shelter, and education or any other care or control necessary for the child's physical, mental, or emotional health, even though the natural parent is physically and financially able; (iv) 1. the child was born: A. addicted to or dependent on cocaine, heroin, or a derivative thereof; or B. with a significant presence of cocaine, heroin, or a derivative thereof in the child's blood as evidenced by toxicology or other appropriate tests; and 2. the natural parent refuses admission into a drug treatment program or failed to fully participate in a drug treatment program; or (v) the natural parent has: 1. subjected the child to:

2. been convicted: A. in this State of a crime of violence, as defined in Article 27, § 643B of the Code, against the child, the other natural parent of the child, another child of the natural parent, or any person who resides in the household of the natural parent; B. in any state or in any court of the United States of a crime that would be a crime of violence, as defined in Article 27, § 643B of the Code, if committed in this State against the child, the other natural parent of the child, another child of the natural parent, or any person who resides in the household of the natural parent; or C. of aiding or abetting, conspiring, or soliciting to commit a crime described in item A or item B of this item; or 3. involuntarily lost parental rights of a sibling of the child. (2) If a natural parent does not provide specified medical treatment for a child because the natural parent is legitimately practicing religious beliefs, that reason alone does not make the natural parent a negligent parent. (3) The court shall consider the evidence under paragraph (1)(i) through (iv) of this subsection regarding continuing or serious conditions or acts and may waive the child placement agency's obligations under subsection (c) of this section if the court, after appropriate evaluation of efforts made and services rendered, finds by clear and convincing evidence that the waiver of those obligations is in the best interest of the child. (4) The court shall waive the child placement agency's obligations under subsection (c) of this section if the court finds that one of the circumstances or acts enumerated in paragraph (1)(v) of this subsection exists. (5) If the court finds that any of the circumstances or acts enumerated in paragraph (1)(v) of this subsection exists, the court shall make a specific finding, based on facts in the record, as to whether or not the return of the child to the custody of the natural parent poses an unacceptable risk to the future safety of the child. In cases where the termination of parental rights is involved, there is, as we have said, a strong presumption that the child's best interests are served by maintaining parental rights. It is only when clear and convincing evidence exists that the child's best interests are served by termination, may a parent's constitutional right to parent his child be permanently foreclosed. In our view, in the instant case, considering the allegations made by CCDSS as to petitioner's mental capacity, the parenting and reunification services offered to petitioner were not sufficient and not sufficiently tailored to his alleged specific situation to support a finding that, with sufficient and properly tailored services, he could not maintain a parental relationship with his children. (Sec.5-313(c)(2)(i)). There was evidence of only one reunification agreement between the natural parent and CCDSS. The agreement that petitioner was required to enter into, was, as we have said, deficient in its specific application to his needs. Even then, the evidence supports that petitioner made a major effort to fulfill his obligations under that agreement, albeit limited somewhat by his then reading level. While there may be no easily ascertainable levels of assistance that must be offered when the termination of parental rights of a disabled parent is involved, that level is far above the minimal services CCDSS offered in the case sub judice. Additionally, on his own, petitioner sought help in improving his reading ability and thus his level of literacy. (Sec.5-313(c)(2)(ii)). The children had bonded well with foster parents, but also appeared to display feelings and some bonding with petitioner. (Sec.5-313(c)(2)(iii)). [20] The children, while apparently well adjusted to their foster parents and foster homes, also appeared comfortable with petitioner when he was permitted to be with them. Neither child was in school and there was no evidence as to any community adjustment. (Sec.5-313(c)(2)(iv)). There was uncontradicted evidence that petitioner had made extensive and extraordinary efforts to further reunification with his children. He had, to the best of his ability, attempted to do almost everything asked of him, and more, in order to become a capable parent. Additionally, he currently had steady employment, and had been steadily employed for extended periods of time. He had living facilities that included a bedroom for the children. There is no evidence that the facility, itself, was presently unsuitable. There were relatives nearby that could offer assistance upon request. His employment had consisted of assisting disabled persons in assisted care living situations. (Sec.5-313(c)(2)(v)). In so far as the record reflects, he maintained as regular a contact with his children as CCDSS would permit. (Sec.5-313(c)(2)(v) 1). There is little evidence to which we have been directed in the record that he has declined to contribute to the payment of the expenses of his children, or, for that matter, that he is at the present time unable to contribute to their support. (Sec.5-313(c)(2)(v) 2). The record reflects that petitioner has attempted to maintain regular contact with his children but that, to some degree, he has been stymied in his attempts by the position taken by CCDSS. (Sec.5-313(c)(2)(v) 3). The evidence is unclear as to whether additional services, specific to petitioner's needs, would bring about lasting parental adjustments facilitating reunification. Nevertheless, it is clear that only regular services have been offered under a single reunification program. It is asserted by petitioner, and by his expert witness, and amicus curiae that additional services that are particularly appropriate for someone in petitioner's situation are available, but have never been offered to him. It is thus unclear, and certainly not to a clear and convincing standard, that proper additional services could not bring about an adjustment that would permit reunification in the reasonable future. Until such services are offered, and petitioner avails or does not avail himself of such services, it is not clear that reunification is unforeseeable. (Sec.5-313(c)(2)(v) 4). Equally, we do not believe that the evidence presented below satisfies the clear and convincing standard as to the conditions or acts under section 5-313(d). As we indicate elsewhere, there is little evidence, as opposed to conjecture, that petitioner was inherently disabled to such an extent that he would be unable to care for the needs of the children for considerable periods of time. (Sec.5-313(d)(1)(i)). He had, in fact, cared for the needs of other disabled persons as a part of his steady employment. He could not adequately read, but was taking classes to address that deficiency. He was a high school graduate. He had adequate living facilities. There was no scientific evidence that he was mentally impairedthat was an assumption that was made by CCDSS and Dr. Blumberg, who apparently presumed that he was, but undertook no tests to establish the extent, if any, of such impairment. Dr. Blumberg was of the perhaps mistaken opinion that the tests to determine the extent of impairment could not be given to someone who could not read. There was no evidence that petitioner had ever committed acts of abuse or willful neglect in respect to the children. In fact, when he was unable to care for Tristynn for a temporary period he approached CCDSS seeking assistance. (Sec.5-313(d)(1)(ii)). There is no evidence that the petitioner repeatedly failed to give his children adequate food, shelter, etc. The only evidence in the record is that on the one occasion when he was unable to care for a child, he went to CCDSS seeking assistance. Since that moment, he has not had custody of the children. One of the children was apparently born with health problems related to the drug addiction of the mother, not the petitioner. There is little evidence that the petitioner had, or has, any alcohol or drug problems. Nonetheless, he attended all drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs to which he was referred, only to have those programs conclude that he had no such problems. (Sec.5-313(d)(1)(iv)(1) and (2). There is no evidence that the petitioner ever subjected either of the children to torture, chronic abuse, or sexual abuse. The only time that there was any evidence of neglect it was not chronic or life-threatening, and, in fact, petitioner sought assistance from CCDSS. One is not neglecting children when he seeks assistance from CCDSS. (Sec.5-313(d)(1)(v)(1). There is no evidence that the petitioner has ever been convicted of any criminal offense. (Sec.5-313 (d)(1)(v)(2). Other than the children at issue in the instant case, there is no evidence that petitioner has ever lost parental rights of the children's siblings. (Sec.5-313(d)(1)(v)(3) This law clearly establishes that the relevant standard in TPR proceedings is to be by clear and convincing evidence and what is in the best interest of the child. In In re Mark M., 365 Md. 687, 705-06, 782 A.2d 332, 343 (2001), we recently reiterated the importance of the best interest of the child standard within the context of the Family Law Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland: Pursuant to the doctrine of parens patriae, the State of Maryland has an interest in caring for those, such as minors, who cannot care for themselves. See Boswell, 352 Md. at 218-19, 721 A.2d at 669. We have held that `the best interests of the child may take precedence over the parent's liberty interest in the course of a custody, visitation, or adoption dispute.' Boswell, 352 Md. at 219, 721 A.2d at 669; see also In re Adoption No. 10941, 335 Md. at 113, 642 A.2d at 208 (stating that `the controlling factor... is ... what best serves the interest of the child'). That which will best promote the child's welfare becomes particularly consequential where the interests of a child are in jeopardy.... As we stated in In re Adoption/Guardianship No. A91-71A, 334 Md. 538, 640 A.2d 1085 (1994), the child's welfare is `a consideration that is of transcendent importance'.... In determining whether it is in the best interests of the children, here Tristynn and Edward, to terminate completely a natural parent's relationships with his children, the court (the Circuit Court for Carroll County) was required to consider the factors listed in section 5-313(c) that we have extensively discussed above. We are well aware that the trial court is in the unique position to marshal the applicable facts, assess the situation, and determine the correct means of fulfilling a child's best interests. In re Mark M., 365 Md. 687, 707, 782 A.2d 332, 343-44 (2001). CCDSS argues in its brief how the Circuit Court in making its determination neither abused its discretion nor made findings that were clearly erroneous, and that the Court of Special Appeals supported the Circuit Court's findings and found the Circuit Court not to have abused its discretion. The Court of Special Appeals opined: The Circuit Court conducted hearings in the instant matter.... The court concluded that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate Mr. F.'s parental rights. ... Based on the evidence, reviewed below, we cannot say that the Circuit Court was clearly erroneous in its factual determinations or that it abused its discretion by terminating Mr. F.'s parental rights. In re Adoption/Guardianship Nos. J9610436 and J9711031, No. 1579, slip op. at 4 (Court of Special Appeals May 11, 2001). Upon our review of the record in this case, it is evident that there was not clear and convincing evidence in the record of this case sufficient to overcome the presumption that the best interests of the children rest in the retention, generally, of petitioner's parental rights, although at the present time actual custody may not be appropriate. There was a failure to rebut by a clear and convincing standard the strong presumption that a child's best interest is served by retaining legal relationships with his or her natural parents. The trial court erred in finding otherwise and abused its discretion in terminating petitioner's parental rights. We hold that the trial court, in considering the factors under section 5-313(c) and 5-313(d), reached an erroneous conclusion that those factors had been sufficiently satisfied so as to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the children would be better served by now terminating petitioner's fundamental constitutional right to be a parent to his children. We shall reverse the decisions of the intermediate court and the Circuit Court. In this case, when considering section 5-313 alone, and within the context of Title 5 of the Family Law Article as a whole, there was not ample evidence to properly conclude that Mr. F.'s disability, even if it exists, renders him permanently incapable of caring for his children in an unsupervised setting. Nor is there sufficient evidence that CCDSS has made adequate reunification efforts to improve petitioner's parenting skills. Certainly, there was not clear and convincing evidence to warrant a present termination of his parental rights.