Opinion ID: 1540750
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Hearing on the Merits of the Adoption

Text: The hearing on the merits of the adoption was held April 27-29, 1992. After testimony was adduced relevant to whether, under § 5-312, the independent adoption would be granted without the consent of the natural father, the court (Wolff, J.), by order dated May 4, 1992, denied the D.'s petition for adoption, but ordered that custody of Baby G. be continued with the D.'s. The court stated that, as to § 5-312, the following had been proven by clear and convincing evidence: 1. that the D.'s had exercised custody of the child for at least six months; 2. that the child had been out of the custody of Ernest for at least one year; and 3. that the child had developed significant feelings toward and emotional ties with the D.'s. The court ruled, however, that it had not been proven by clear and convincing evidence that Ernest was unfit and therefore it could not find that it was in Baby G.'s best interest to terminate Ernest's rights as to the child. The court said: We listed an argument to various things that we could consider under what would be in the best interests of the child; namely, pertaining to the fitness of the father.... It was pointed out that we have to look at a number of things, that taking them individually they may not be too bad. But the sum total, it's argued by counsel for the Petitioners and for the mother, that the father is not fit. The court then reviewed the evidence introduced by the D.'s and Mellisa, including Ernest's driving record, the drug possession charge, his employment record, a history of instability in living arrangements, the weaknesses in his child care plan, his association with individuals employed on the Block, evidence of poor judgment regarding his relationships with Mellisa and Beth W., and his abandonment of Mellisa when she became pregnant. The court concluded that, while it was clear that the D.'s would be ideal parents to Baby G., Ernest was the natural father and he had not been shown to be unfit by clear and convincing evidence. The court ruled also that it had not been proven by clear and convincing evidence that Ernest failed repeatedly to contribute to the physical care and support of the child. Although neither Mellisa nor the D.'s had received any money from Ernest for medical expenses or the care of the child, the court noted that Ernest had testified that he offered to make payment to the D.'s. Ernest had produced in evidence two checks which he claimed to have given to his attorney to tender on his behalf. The first check, dated August 21, 1991, was a personal check for $7,279.79, drawn from the account of his mother, Margaret H., and made out to cash. The second check produced by Ernest was a copy of a cashier's check for the same amount payable to Ernest, and dated December 2, 1991. The check was not endorsed. Ernest testified that the money came from savings of [his] family, in particular of his mother and grandmother. There was no evidence that Ernest tendered or made any contribution from his own funds, although he was employed at the time. He further testified that the checks were refused by the D.'s. The D.'s testified, however, that they did not receive any offer of money from Ernest or from anyone on his behalf, nor did they expect any. The court stated: So, after he was found to be the father, and I don't know whatever happened, he did offer to make payments. And we have monies that were withdrawn and that he gave to his counsel to tender. They may not have been tendered. I don't know what happened. No one produced the evidence. But according to him, he made an effort through counsel to make payments. No one ever asked any payments of him after he was established to be the father. As a matter of fact, Mr. [D.] said `I didn't expect any money from him.' So, no requests being made, having offered to pay, I don't find, again by clear and convincing evidence, that he has repeatedly failed to contribute to the physical care and support of the child. The D.'s filed a Notice for In Banc Review on June 10, 1992, pursuant to Article IV, § 22, of the Maryland Constitution and Maryland Rule 2-551; they raised the following questions: 1. Whether the trial court erred by failing to appoint counsel for the child in violation of § 5-323; 2. Whether, under § 5-312, the court erred by equating the best interest standard with Ernest's fitness; and 3. Whether the court erred in finding that Ernest had not failed repeatedly to contribute to the child's support under § 5-312(b)(4)(ii).