The Court of Appeals in the IN RE PETITION OF A.T.J. AND L.D.J., decided on March 18, 2021, further clarified the meaning of “grasping parental opportunity interest” in context of adoption petitions.

At trial, the biological father’s rights were terminated during adoption litigation for the minor child with the father objecting to the proceeding.

The biological father had primarily argued in the case that the trial court did not properly apply a parental presumption: that is, it terminated his parental rights without first making a finding of parental unfitness.

Prior caselaw had established that the presumption in favor of a fit parent’s right to raise his or her children must be rebutted by a finding of parental unfitness before the trial court can terminate a biological parent’s rights.

The Court of Appeals here though established that the parental presumption is not automatic and mere biological link does not confer the presumption.

Here the Court determined that the father does not get the benefit of the presumption because:

1) Appellant does not benefit from the parental presumption because he does not seek to assume the parental responsibilities.

The evidence at trial established the biological father was not ready or willing to assume parental responsibility. Custodial preference must be bestowed when there is indication that a parent is seeking actual or legal custody of his child in order to benefit from it.

Generally, a parent will establish intent to raise his or her child when facing opposing adoption petition in filing for legal or physical custody and a requesting to consolidate matters.

In short, in order to successfully oppose an adoption petition, a biological parent must do more than express a desire to form a relationship.  There must be a desire to shoulder significant responsibility with respect to the daily supervision, education, protection, or care of the child.

2) Appellant does not also benefit from the parental presumption because he did not grasp his opportunity interest.

The Courts have generally held the parental presumption is triggered in favor of a fit, unwed, noncustodial father only when he has timely grasped his constitutional opportunity interest.

Opportunity interest means taking affirmative concrete step toward gaining custody of your child once you have had sufficient notice of impending adoption petition for the child.

Thus, a biological father who does not grasp this opportunity does not benefit from the parental presumption and therefore is not entitled to the finding of unfitness required to rebut it.

Here the biological father had not played any role in the child’s life.  He did not want to presently care for child and only argued that the adoption should not be granted because it may jeopardize his ability to form a relationship in the future.

It is not enough that the father had a genuine interest in getting to know his daughter in the future, and such is not sufficient to qualify as grasping opportunity interest.

In conclusion, parental presumption is not absolute and must be qualified through affirmative, concrete actions toward parenting none of which existed in the current case.  The lower court decision to terminate parental rights was upheld on appeal.

Refer to our Washington DC Adoption and Child Custody pages for more detailed materials on this subject matter.