## Facts

- K.D. and H.O. lived together with their twin sons (the twins); K.D.’s 12-year-old daughter, T.D., lived elsewhere, and H.O. was not T.D.’s father.
- The District of Columbia filed a neglect complaint against K.D. and H.O., alleging the home was unsanitary and that T.D. reported sexual abuse by H.O.
- K.D., who struggled with addiction, stipulated that the twins were neglected; no neglect ruling as to H.O. was made.
- While H.O. faced a sex-abuse prosecution and was incarcerated for a time, K.D. and the twins entered a family drug-treatment setting, but K.D. did not achieve recovery.
- The twins were placed with a temporary caregiver outside the home.
- In the neglect case, the court changed the permanency goal from reunification with K.D. to reunification with H.O., and deferred further changes pending resolution of H.O.’s sex-abuse case.
- After H.O. was convicted of sex abuse and assault, the court changed the permanency goal to adoption.
- H.O. petitioned for custody; K.D. later consented to the twins’ adoption.
- Prospective adoptive parents began visiting the twins while the twins still lived with their temporary caregiver; H.O. continued regular visits with the twins.
- The twins moved into the prospective adoptive parents’ home, and the prospective adoptive parents filed an adoption petition.
- The trial court found that H.O. was withholding his consent to adoption contrary to the twins’ best interests, but the court did not find H.O. unfit or negligent and did not find, by clear and convincing evidence, that adoption was in the twins’ best interests.
- The trial court nonetheless entered final decrees of adoption, terminating H.O.’s parental rights.
- H.O. appealed the adoption decrees to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court could grant an adoption and terminate a biological father’s parental rights over his objection without a finding that he was unfit or neglectful and without a clear-and-convincing finding that adoption was in the children’s best interests.
2. Whether the adoption proceedings failed to account for the legal preference afforded to a fit natural parent in custody and adoption disputes.

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals vacated the final adoption decrees.
- The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the correct legal standards governing adoption over a parent’s objection.
- The court concluded that the adoption proceedings did not properly account for the preference due a fit father and that the trial court’s findings were insufficient to terminate H.O.’s rights and approve the adoptions.

## Legal Principles

- A fit natural parent has a recognized priority in custody determinations that a court must consider before placing a child with nonparents.
- Terminating a parent’s rights through an adoption over that parent’s objection requires compliance with statutory requirements and constitutional due process protections.
- A trial court may not dispense with a parent’s consent to adoption and terminate parental rights without the findings required by law (including findings tied to parental fitness and the child’s best interests under the applicable burden of proof).
- When a record lacks an adjudication of neglect or an express determination of parental unfitness, a court must take special care not to treat adoption as a substitute for the findings necessary to overcome a fit parent’s claim.
- Appellate courts will vacate adoption decrees and remand when the trial court applies an incorrect legal standard or makes legally inadequate findings supporting termination of parental rights.

## Conclusion

*In re S.M.* held that the trial court’s adoption decrees terminating H.O.’s parental rights could not stand because the proceedings failed to apply the preference accorded to a fit father and lacked the findings required to authorize adoption over his objection; the D.C. Court of Appeals therefore vacated the decrees and remanded for further proceedings under the proper standards.


In re S.M., 985 A.2d 413 (2009)