If you are unable to access the links on this page click here.
For Printer Friendly version click here.
To
Email Weekly Case Summary, click here.
SUMMER ADOPTION LAW INSTITUTE CLE OPPORTUNITY – AUGUST 3-7, 2009
Capital University Law School and the National Center for Adoption Law & Policy are pleased to offer attorneys the chance to join law students from across the country in the Summer Adoption Law Institute (SALI), an intensive week-long law school course exploring adoption and related child protection issues.
The course runs Monday through Thursday from 8:30 - 3:00, allowing 5 CLE credits per day and Friday from 8:30 to 12:15, allowing 3.5 CLE credits. Practitioners can choose to attend the entire week-long course or can opt to attend an individual day. Come for as many or as few one-day sessions as you like. Space is limited. For more information or to register, click here http://www.ncalp.org/sali_cle.htm. |
INSIDE THIS ISSUE (click title to jump to the article):
TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS
RHODE ISLAND: In re Alexis L.
TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS/Reasonable Efforts
OREGON: In re F.D.J
ADOPTION/Procedure
GEORGIA: Blount v. Knighton
CHILD PROTECTION/Disposition
OREGON: State ex rel Dep’t. of Human Servs. v. N.S. (In re A.H.)
Rights of Biological Father/Presumption of Paternity
CALIFORNIA: Kevin Q. v. Lauren W.
FEATURED CASE
TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS
RHODE ISLAND: In re Alexis L.
The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed an order of the Family Court terminating the parental rights of appellant mother, holding that the child’s erroneously admitted hearsay statement did not warrant an automatic reversal of the termination order, that there was no abuse of discretion in the judge’s decision not to qualify the domestic violence advocate as an expert witness, and that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests. Under R.I. Gen. Laws § 14-1-69 (1956), the court may permit a child’s hearsay statement where it is made spontaneously, within a reasonable time after the alleged acts of abuse have occurred and was made to a trusted adult. Here, the court found that a period longer than three months was beyond the scope of a “reasonable time” as defined by case precedent, but nonetheless held that reversal of the termination order was unnecessary because in the 127 specific findings of fact by the trial justice, none referred to the statements and, thus, the court placed little to no weight on the statement in rendering its decision. The court also found that based on the transcript of the domestic violence advocate’s testimony, there was not sufficient evidence to say the trial court erred by declining to qualify her as an expert under any of the bases listed in Rule 702 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence. Finally, the court concluded that termination of the mother’s parental rights was supported by legally competent evidence and the trial court did not misconceive or overlook material evidence and made a sound and fully supportable finding of unfitness based on the child’s best interests and mother’s inability to provide a safe and nurturing environment in which he could live, learn, and grow.
Cite: No. 2006-57-Appeal; 2009 R.I. LEXIS 74 (R.I. June 12, 2009)
Link to Full Opinion
Back to Top
OTHER CASES OF INTEREST
TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS/Reasonable Efforts
OREGON: In re F.D.J
The Court of Appeals of Oregon reversed a judgment of the juvenile court changing the child’s permanency plan to adoption, holding that the Department of Human Services (DHS) had made reasonable efforts to reunify the family but appellant father had made sufficient progress, under the circumstances, to have the child returned home. Under O.R.S. 419B.476, to change the permanency plan of a child to adoption, the juvenile court must find that DHS made reasonable efforts toward reunification and that the parent has not made sufficient progress to allow the child to return home safely. The father had been incarcerated throughout the proceedings and had not been offered any services by DHS. The appeals court found that DHS’s requests required nothing more than father’s cooperation in establishing paternity, which he provided by acknowledging paternity of the child and submitting to paternity testing. Therefore, he had made sufficient progress to have the child safely return home and a change in the permanency plan from reunification to adoption was unfounded.
Cite: No. A140644; 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 815 (Or. Ct. App. June 17, 2009)
Link to Full Opinion
Back to Top
ADOPTION/Procedure
GEORGIA: Blount v. Knighton
The Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second Division, affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant appellees’ adoption, holding that the errors in the adoption petition were not reversible, and the adoption was in the child’s best interest. Appellant’s maternal great aunt and uncle had intervened in the adoption proceedings, claiming on appeal that the adoption was not in the child’s best interest and was invalid because the petition lacked certain statutory requirements such as a copy of the marriage license, criminal background checks, and an updated putative father registry search. The court held these errors were not reversible because the adoptive parents submitted their marriage license during the trial, criminal background checks were filed with the trial court, and the putative father registry was checked when the biological mother first surrendered her parental rights. The appeals court held that while the trial court must give consideration to the Department’s placement recommendation with appellant relatives, it was not required to follow the recommendation.
Cite: No. A09A0907; 2009 Ga. App. LEXIS 690 (June 18, 2009)
Viewing the Full Opinion Requires a Free LexisOne Subscription. Click Here
Back to Top
CHILD PROTECTION/Disposition
OREGON: State ex rel Dep’t. of Human Servs. v. N.S. (In re A.H.)
The Court of Appeals of Oregon reversed the juvenile court’s order establishing a guardianship for appellant mother’s child, holding that the juvenile court erred when it found that appellant’s alleged inability to recognize the risk of harm posed by her brother, a convicted sex offender, prevented the child's return to the mother. The court of appeals held that there was no basis for finding that the child could not return to appellant within a reasonable time as the record did not show that the uncle would have any contact with the child and, even if he did have contact with the child, there was no evidence to show that the uncle posed a risk to the child; the court was required to find “some nexus between the nature of the offender’s prior offense and a risk to the child at issue.” Therefore, there was no basis for the determination that the child could not return to appellant mother and, consequently, the order of guardianship was reversed.
Cite: No. A140237; 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 810 (Ore. Ct. App. June 17, 2009)
Link to Full Opinion
Back to Top
Rights of Biological Father/Presumption of Paternity
CALIFORNIA: Kevin Q. v. Lauren W.
The Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reversed the Superior Court of Orange County’s judgment that declared Kevin Q. to be the legal father of appellant mother’s child, holding that although there was a rebuttable presumption under Fam. Code, §7611 that Kevin Q. was the legal father because he had taken the child into his home and openly held him out as his natural child, this presumption was trumped by a valid declaration of paternity signed by the child's biological father, Brent A. The appellate court found that a presumption of paternity established under §7611 is rebutted by a judgment establishing paternity of another man, and under Fam. Code §7573, a declaration of paternity “filed with the Department of Child Support Services shall establish the paternity of a child and shall have the same force and effect as a judgment….” Because Brent A. voluntarily signed a declaration of paternity, the appellate court held that Brent A. was the legal father of the child and remanded the matter directing the trial court to enter a new judgment declaring Brent A., as the child’s biological father, to be the legal father.
Cite: No. G040343; 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 984 (Cal. Ct. App. June 19, 2009)
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.
|
|
 |
