Appeals Court -- January 24, 2012
Facts: Cadence was born in October 2008 to a mother and father who both habitually used heroin and cocaine, have been homeless, and had extensive criminal histories. Upon her birth, Cadence was placed in custody of the Department of Children and Families, hospitalized for drug withdrawal treatment, and then placed in foster care. Over the next few years, Cadence spent the majority of her life in government custody. In February 2010 she was placed at the home of relatives of the mother, including Mark, her great uncle, and his daughter Amanda. Amanda was still supported by her parents. At a hearing, Mark testified he was willing to become Cadence’s guardian but not willing to adopt her. Amanda testified she was also willing to become Cadence’s guardian but did not testify she was ready to adopt her. The Juvenile Court terminated the parents’ rights to consent to adoption and named Amanda as the sole adoptive parent.
Issue 1: Did the court properly terminate the parents’ rights?
Yes. On appeal, the court found there was ample evidence of drug abuse and criminality such that Cadence’s parents were not fit and that terminating their rights was in Cadence’s best interest.
Issue 2: Did the court properly name Amanda as the sole adoptive parent?
No. On appeal, the court determined that, while the judge did not necessarily have to adopt a plan put forward by the parties at interest, the final ruling must reflect Cadence’s best interests. The court found there was no evidence that Amanda was willing to care for Cadence as the sole adoptive parent and that, considering that Amanda still lived at home and depended on her own parents, it was unlikely she could support Cadence on her own. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no evidence that making Amanda the sole adoptive parent was in Cadence’s best interest.
