# In Re: Adoption/guardianship of Rashawn H.

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · December 11, 2007 · 402 Md. 477

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9765294

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re ADOPTION/GUARDIANSHIP OF RASHAWN H. and Tyrese H.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** December 11, 2007
- **Citations:** 402 Md. 477; 937 A.2d 177; 2007 Md. LEXIS 732
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence
- **Judges:** Cathell, Bell, Raker, Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, Wilner
- **Cited by:** 53 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9765294

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that “[t]he notions of ‘unfitness’ and ‘exceptional circumstances’ have a different connotation in TPR cases than they do in custody and visitation disputes, however. In a custody case, unfitness means an unfitness to have custody of the child, not an unfitness to r…
- holding that the presumption favoring parental rights "may be rebutted only by a showing that the parent is either unfit or that exceptional circumstances exist that would make the continued relationship detrimental to the child’s best interest.”
- explaining that in terminating parental rights, the Constitution requires the .state to show "that the parent is ‘unfit’ or that 'exceptional circumstances’ exist” before considering best interests of the child
- noting that the mother was unable to comply with the Department’s services to facilitate reunification “due to her disability and limitations”
- observing that custody and visitation orders are subject to reconsideration “upon a showing of changed circumstances on the parent’s part.”

## Opinion text

Concurring opinion by CATHELL, J. which BELL, C.J. joins.
I concur in the judgment. I write to make clear my position. As I read the majority’s opinion, it incorporates that *506 either a finding of unfitness or exceptional circumstances must be found after the statutory provisions are addressed in order for parental rights to be terminated under the statute. I have a strong belief that the Constitutions of the United States and Maryland are paramount to any statute that may be enacted. In my view, the fundamental constitutional right of parents to raise their children is to be addressed normally by an initial finding of either parental unfitness or extraordinary circumstances. Before a trial court addresses the statutory factors it should address the unfitness/extraordinary factors prior to considering elements in the statute. In simplified form, I believe that the majority has the cart before the horse, but, nonetheless, has arrived at the right destination, albeit in reverse. Chief Judge Bell joins in the concurrence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9765294. Public record. Not legal advice.