Court of Appeals Reverses Ruling
Terminating Parental Rights of Father With Limited Intellectual
Ability
A divided Court of Appeals has reversed
a trial court's
ruling that would have terminated the parental rights of a father
who had limited intellectual abilities, commenting that child
rearing rights are fundamental constitutional rights that
"can
only be completely terminated upon the clearest and most convincing
evidence that the parent, however poor, uneducated, or disabled,
cannot and will not, even with proper assistance, be able to
sufficiently parent his children in the reasonable future."
In 1995, a father took his child to the
Carroll County Department of Social Services (CCDSS) and asked for
assistance in caring for the child. The CCDSS took custody of the
child and never returned the child to the parent. When a second son
was born, the CCDSS also took that child into its custody.
The CCDSS was of the view that the
father had "a
reduced mental capacity that renders him incapable of parenting the
children on his own."
In 1997, the CCDSS filed a petition for guardianship and termination
of the father's parental rights. The father contested the
termination of his parental rights, pointing out that he had
completed his high school education, obtained a driver's license,
secured employment, and maintained his own residence. He had
enrolled in remedial reading classes, and had attended parenting
classes two times per week for over three years.
The CCDSS presented expert testimony
from a psychiatrist who
"reported
that [the father] suffered from a serious intellectual impairment
and categorized [the father] as disabled and unfit to parent."
The trial judge agreed with the CCDSS, and the ruling was affirmed
by the Court of Special Appeals.
A 4-3 majority of the Court of Appeals
reversed the ruling. After reviewing the Maryland statute regarding
termination of parental rights, found in Maryland Code, Family Law
Article, § 5-313, the Court of Appeals emphasized:
"[T]here
is, as we have said, a strong presumption that the child's
best interests are served by maintaining parental rights. It is only
when clear and convincing evidence exists that the child's best
interests are served by termination, may a parent's constitutional
right to parent his child be permanently foreclosed."
After reviewing the evidence, the Court
of Appeals concluded:
"There
was a failure to rebut by a clear and convincing standard the strong
presumption that a child's
'best interest' is served by retaining legal relationships with his or
her natural parents. The trial court erred in finding otherwise and
abused its discretion in terminating [the father's] parental rights."
Dissenting judges on the Court of
Appeals accused the majority of having
"thrown
appellate restraint to the wind,"
and "engag[ing]
in appellate fact-finding in an effort to justify its desired result."
In Re Adoption/Guardianship Nos.
J9610436 and J9711031, No. 58, September Term, 2001, in the Court
of Appeals of Maryland, filed April 16, 2002.
[Return to Family Law
Update Page] |
