Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1895 September Term, 1998

IN RE: ADOPTION/GUARDIANSHIP NO. J970013 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY

Murphy, C.J., Moylan, Kenney, JJ.

OPINION BY MOYLAN, J.

Filed: September 10, 1999

-2-

The appellant, James L., challenges a judgment in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Judge Robert Woods presiding, whereby his parental rights were terminated with respect to his son, Kevon T. consideration: 1. Did the trial court err in finding that the appellant's incarceration was tantamount to a disability thus rendering him incapable of providing adequate care for his son? Did the trial court err in holding that the Department of Social Services was relieved of its statutory obligation to provide the appellant with the appropriate services? The appellant raises the following issues for our

2.

Perceiving no error, we shall affirm the judgment of the trial court. Background In November of 1991, Kevon T. was born to the appellant and Jacqueline T.1 The appellant and Jacqueline apparently met while

both were incarcerated at the Lorton Correctional Facility and working in the garment shop. Although Kevon was conceived while

his parents were incarcerated, Jacqueline was released prior to giving birth to Kevon. The appellant, however, is serving a

sentence of twenty years to life for a drug-related first degree murder. He has been incarcerated since 1974. The appellant is

currently 44 years old.

1 The trial court terminated parental rights with respect to both the appellant and Jacqueline T. Jacqueline T., however, has not appealed that ruling and this appeal concerns only the termination of parental rights with respect to the appellant.

-3Because of the appellant's continuous incarceration, he earned an insignificant sum of money working within the correctional facility. Shortly after Kevon's birth, the appellant sent

Jacqueline approximately $140 per month for child care.

He later

learned, however, that Jacqueline was apparently using the money to buy drugs rather than to care for Kevon. The appellant then lost

his job within the facility and stopped sending Jacqueline money. At the time of trial, the appellant earned approximately $21 per month. While incarcerated, the appellant has participated in a

concerned fathers' group, has graduated from a drug program, and has been involved in stress and anger management programs. Between

September of 1995 and January of 1997, the appellant had attempted to contact his son through the Prince George's County Department of Social Services (hereinafter "DSS"). For example, the appellant

requested the telephone number of Kevon's foster family, and he was provided with the phone number. The appellant called twice. The

appellant also requested visitation with Kevon.

Beginning in

February of 1998, Kevon met with the appellant in the facility, where the appellant talked to Kevon and bought him a soda. did not recognize the appellant. Kevon was brought Kevon to the

correctional facility on three additional occasions in 1998 to meet with the appellant. Marsha Goldfine, a social worker for the DSS,

testified at trial that despite Kevon's visits with the appellant, Kevon did not seem to be becoming more familiar with his father.

-4In March of 1997, the DSS filed a petition in the circuit court for guardianship with right to consent to the long-term care of Kevon.2 Beginning on October 19, 1998, a hearing was held in

the circuit court with regard to the termination of the appellant's parental rights. trial court At the conclusion of the three-day hearing, the the DSS's petition for guardianship and

granted

accordingly terminated the appellant's parental rights with respect to Kevon. This timely appeal followed. Standard of Review In In re Adoption/Guardianship No. 95195062/CAD, 116 Md. App. 443, 606 A.2d 1102 (1997), we discussed the appropriate focus in cases involving the termination of parental rights. We there said:

In decisions regarding the termination of parental rights, the best interest of the child has long been the guiding standard. Indeed, the child's welfare is of "'transcendent importance.'" Termination of parental rights, however, implicates the fundamental constitutional right to raise one's own child. Because the right "is so fundamental... it may not be taken away unless clearly justified." 116 Md. App. at 453-54 (citations omitted). "the State bears the heavy burden of We further noted that by clear and

proving,

convincing evidence, that termination of a parent's rights serves the best interests of the child." Id. at 454. Additionally,

The petition filed by the DSS also concerned the guardianship of Donte T., a son born to Jacqueline T. and another inmate. Donte T., however, is not involved in the instant appeal.

2

-5[i]n reviewing the evidence presented below to determine whether the trial court's findings were clearly erroneous, our function * * * is not to determine whether, on the evidence, we might have reached a different conclusion. Rather, it is to decide only whether there was sufficient evidence -- by a clear and convincing standard -- to support the * * * determination that it would be in the best interest of [the child] to terminate the rights of [the natural parent]. In making this decision, we must assume the truth of all of the evidence, and of the favorable inferences fairly deducible therefrom, tending to support the factual conclusion of the trial court. In re Adoption No. 9598, 77 Md. App. 511, 518, 551 A.2d 143 (1989). Moreover, in a case involving termination of parental rights, "the greatest respect must be accorded the opportunity [the trial court] had to see and hear the witnesses and to observe their appearance and demeanor."... Where the best interest of the child is of primary importance, "the trial court's determination is accorded great deference, unless it is arbitrary or clearly wrong." Scott [v. Dept. of Social Services,] 76 Md. App. [357], 382-83 [1988]. In re Adoption/Guardianship Nos. 2152A, 2153A, 2154A, 100 Md. App. 262, 269-70, 641 A.2d 889 (1994). Long-Term Incarceration as a Factor When determining whether the termination of parental rights is proper, a trial court is obligated to consider the multitude of

-6factors enumerated in Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law

Download In Re: Adoption J970013.pdf

Maryland Law