Opinion ID: 2584054
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The comparative stability of the parties

Text: Constance and Clark also make a number of arguments addressing the stability of the two households, which is a best-interest factor under McDanold v. McDanold. [33] They first contend that their household is more stable because both of them are retired, [34] whereas John travels frequently on business. [35] Constance and Clark also contend that they have no alcohol problems, [36] whereas in the past John has admitted to alcohol dependency. Constance and Clark also argue that they have never given up prior children for adoption, whereas both Ruth and John have. Ruth and John contend that these allegations center on problems that are decades old and completely overcome. The special master found that the adoptions of Ruth's and John's respective children were organized responsibly and do not reflect negatively on their judgment, in distinction to Constance and Clark's return of J.G. to DFYS. We agree that the placements for adoption occurred years ago and are therefore of little value as evidence of the present stability of the household under McDanold. Likewise, both couplesConstance and Clark, Ruth and Johnhave been certified as foster parents and therefore have been cleared of present-day substance abuse problems. The special master did not err in finding that Ruth and John provide a stable household. To the limited extent that Constance and Clark have been able to prove any of the above four factors (alleged inability to supervise the child safely, the grandparents' better access to the child's extended family, parental preference, and relative stability), these factors do not outweigh the superior court's finding that Bernard's emotional health would be best served by continuing his placement with Ruth and John. We hold that there was no abuse of discretion and no clear error.