STATE LAW/Adoption Procedure/Investigation of Placement

OREGON: Middleton v. Dep’t. of Human Servs.
The Court of Appeals of Oregon reversed the circuit court’s judgment setting aside the Department of Human Services’ (DHS) order determining a child should be placed with his foster parents rather than relatives. The court of appeals found that although Oregon administrative rules give relatives preference for adoptive placement, those rules are not a “functional mandate” to place the child with relatives over other interested parties. The court of appeals noted that placement decisions are to be made on an individualized basis, with the best interests of the child as a guide. The court, applying a “substantial evidence” standard of review which supports a finding when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding, concluded that DHS did not err when it found that it was in the child’s best interest to stay with the foster parents because the child had lived the vast majority of his life with them.
Cite: No. A135488; 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 521 (Ore. Ct. App. April 23, 2008)
Link to Full Opinion
Back to Top

STATE LAW/Adoption/Who Must Consent

STATE LAW/Adoption/ Who Must Consent
The Ohio Court of Appeals, Fifth Appellate District, reversed the trial court’s order granting the stepparent adoption of the appellant father’s two-year-old son. The appeals court held that a complete absence of communication or support for a one year period preceding the filing of the adoption petition must be established in order to dispense with the birth parent’s consent. In addition, the court held it was not permitted to “assess whether the communication was meaningful, substantial, significant, or regular.” The court found the father had communicated with the child by sending a birthday card and making several phone calls to the mother and/or stepfather. The father had also made child support payments during the one year period. Therefore, the court held the father’s consent was required for the stepparent adoption.
Cite: No. 07 CA 43; 2008-Ohio-1916 (Ohio Ct. App. April 22, 2008)
Link to Full Opinion
Back to Top

STATE LAW/Termination of Parental Rights/Appeals of Orders of Termination

CONNECTICUT: In re Jorden R.
The Appellate Court of Connecticut reversed in part and remanded the trial court’s order terminating appellant mother’s parental rights. While affirming the neglect adjudication, the appellate court held that the trial court improperly dispensed with the state’s statutory obligation to make reasonable efforts to reunify the mother with her child. The court found the mother had complied with her case plan, and that the trial court’s decision to dispense with reasonable efforts was based on the mother’s youth and immaturity. The court also held that the evidence indicated the mother was willing and able to benefit from reunification services.
Cite: No. AC 28128; 107 Conn. App. 12 (Conn. App. Ct. April 15, 2008)
Link to Full Opinion
Back to Top

STATE LAW/Termination of Parental Rights/Reunification Efforts

RHODE ISLAND: In re Natalya C.
The Supreme Court of Rhode Island vacated the trial court’s order terminating the parental rights of appellant mother, finding that the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) had not made reasonable efforts to reunify appellant with her daughter prior to filing the termination petition. The court held that DCYF need not be the sole provider of the services but that the services must be offered “regardless of the unlikelihood of their success.” The court further held that the services offered must be “designed to address or correct the particular situation” that led to the placement. Here, mental health treatment was needed; however it was not offered as part of the case plan. The court held that requiring parents, who lack the necessary expertise, to self diagnose and request services is unreasonable and that promoting services and treatment is the job of DCYF.
Cite: No. 2006-230-Appeal; 2008 R.I. LEXIS 53 (R.I. Sup. Ct. April 30, 2008)
Link to Full Opinion
Back to Top

STATE LAW/Adoption/Private Termination of Parental Rights

TENNESSEE: In re Adoption of C.B.F.
The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Knoxville, affirmed the trial court’s order terminating the appellant father’s parental rights, holding that the clear and convincing evidence in the record supported the trial court’s dual findings that the father willfully abandoned the child and that the termination of parental rights was in the child’s best interests. Appellee filed a step-parent petition to adopt appellant’s son based on abandonment due to appellant’s willful failure to support the child, despite being financially able to do so. Under Tennessee law, the definition of abandonment in adoption proceedings requires a willful failure to visit, support or make reasonable payments toward support for a period of four consecutive months immediately preceding the termination filing. Relying on the definition of willful failure to support found in the opinion In re M.J.B., which stated “willful failure to support occurs when a person is aware of his or her duty to support, has the capacity to do so, makes no attempt to do so, and has no justifiable excuse for not doing so,” the court of appeals ruled that the evidence did not preponderate against the finding of the trial court that appellant willfully made only token support payments despite having the means to provide more.
Cite: No. E2007-02279-COA-R3-PT; 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 254 (Tenn. Ct. App. April 30, 2008)
Link to Full Opinion
Back to Top

The preceding are summaries of adoption/child welfare law cases prepared by The National Center for Adoption Law & Policy. These summaries are provided for your convenience and information only and are not intended to be complete statements of the law embodied in the cases, interpretations of the law, or expressions of opinion as to the status of the law.  Some of the cases summarized may not be deemed "final" or "published" under the law of the jurisdiction in which the case was decided; such cases may therefore have limited precedential value.  For specific guidance on an adoption law issue, or for an interpretation of or an opinion about the law, we suggest that you consult a legal professional who is familiar with the laws of your jurisdiction.