.webp)
.png)
Child custody disputes are easily among the most difficult cases in family law. When parents are unable to obtain the type of custody they seek, there is a level of suffering and hardship which is seldom seen elsewhere in life. Ideally, when couples separate, biological parents come to a reasonable agreement regarding the parenting of their children; this is the outcome which is desired by the courts, and there is a preference for this type of arrangement in the legal system. However, this arrangement doesn’t always unfold, and many cases end up with one parent having the vast majority of parenting time. In rare cases, one parent is denied having access to their children altogether. One example of the latter situation occurred in the case of In re: Andre J. (2014). Let’s examine this case in detail.
Overview of In re: Andre J. (2014)
The biological parents separated when their child was quite young, and the mother assumed primary custody of the child (Andre). However, the mother displayed poor parenting skills, and the child suffered from considerable neglect during his upbringing. When the child was 8 years old, the court determined that he was a “child in need of assistance,” or CINA, and an official petition was filed with the court alleging that the child needed to be placed in an alternative environment. The petition urged that an alternative environment was necessary to ensure that the child received proper care and attention. The court granted this request and the child was subsequently placed in a foster care home environment. However, the court also developed something referred to as a plan for “reunification,” with the goal being the eventual reunion between Andre and his mother. After the child was initially placed in foster care, the mother moved to Washington, D.C., and so ultimately the mother hoped that the child would relocate to D.C. and be with her.
The reunification plan was reviewed on a semi-annual basis (i.e. every six months). When the child was 19, a new petition was filed to create an APPLA, or “another planned permanent living arrangement,” for Andre, because a determination was made that reunification was not possible. The original plan stated that Andre only had until he was 21 years old to reunify with his mother, and his mother had been inconsistent with respect to her visitation with Andre. This new petition to create an APPLA for Andre was granted by the court. The mother appealed this new court order.
Outcome & Discussion
The Department of Health & Human Services, the petitioner of the original order and the APPLA order, opposed the mother’s appeal. The standard for reviewing an appeal, in this situation, is whether the new order modified a previous order. Since this new order clearly modified the previous order, the court allowed the appeal to move forward. Ultimately, the court upheld the order and concluded that the new APPLA order was in the child’s best interests. Among other things, this case demonstrates clearly the importance of having effective counsel at every stage of the custody process. If the mother had obtained counsel, she likely would have avoided a fruitless appeal. In this situation, the mother’s behavior justified the outcome reached by the appellate court, and a capable attorney likely would’ve been able to identify this beforehand.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information
If you want to learn more, reach out to one of the leading attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-8963.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
