Opinion ID: 2360372
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Parent's Fundamental Right

Text: Parents have a fundamental and constitutional right to raise their children. See In re Samone H. & Marchay E., 385 Md. 282, 299-301, 869 A.2d 370, 380-81 (2005) (and cases cited therein). We acknowledge that Maryland has . . . echoed the Supreme Court, declaring a parent's liberty interest in raising a child a fundamental one that cannot be taken away unless clearly justified. In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 567, 819 A.2d 1030, 1039 (2003) (citations omitted). The Court has recognized the fundamental rights which parents possess: The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that a parent has a constitutionally protected fundamental right to raise his or her children. Recently,. . . we iterated this principle and stated that a parent's interest occupies a unique place in our legal culture, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility. `[Far] more precious . . . than property rights,' parental rights have been deemed to be among those `essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. . . .'       In In re Mark M., we explained that a parent's fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of his or her children is not absolute. We said: That fundamental interest, however, is not absolute and does not exclude other important considerations. 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. 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. That which will best promote the child's welfare becomes particularly consequential where the interests of a child are in jeopardy, as is often the case in situations involving sexual, physical, or emotional abuse by a parent.    We have recognized that in cases where abuse or neglect is evidenced, particularly in a CINA case, the court's role is necessarily more pro-active. See In re Justin D., [357 Md. 431, 448, 745 A.2d 408, 417 (2000)].    A trial court, acting under the State's parens patriae authority, 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, 705-07, 782 A.2d 332, 343-44 (2001).] In re Samone H., 385 Md. at 299-301, 869 A.2d at 380-81 (alterations in original) (alterations added) (citations omitted). We recently stated 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.' In re Billy W., 386 Md. at 684, 874 A.2d at 429 (quoting Boswell v. Boswell, 352 Md. 204, 219, 721 A.2d 662, 669 (1998) (citations omitted)). A State's role in a child's care and protection should take on utmost importance, while a parent's right may not be absolute. A parent's rights may be diminished, [w]hen there is a conflict between the rights of the parents or legal guardian and those of the child, the child's best interest shall take precedence. COMAR 07.02.11.07(A).