In the case of George v. Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families (DSCYF/DFS), No. 134, 2016 (Oct. 27, 2016), Ms. George filed an appeal challenging the Family Court's decision to terminate her parental rights in her twins, M.G. and M.G. Although appeals are not unusual in cases of termination of parental rights ("TPR"), Ms. George's appeal presented an interesting argument.

The background and history of the case is set forth in greater detail in the Opinion and are only briefly reviewed in this post. While Ms. George's case was pending her great aunt filed a petition for guardianship ("Guardianship Petition") of the twins. On November 6, 2015, the Family Court conducted a hearing on the TPR. The Family Court stated at the hearing that it was not deciding the Guardianship Petition filed by Ms. George's great aunt concurrently with the TPR. When the Family Court issued its decision after the hearing, the Court granted the TPR, denied the Guardianship Petition, and described the November 6th hearing as a "consolidated hearing." Ms. George contended on appeal that this violated her constitutional right to due process. "She [alleged] that the court's statement that it was 'not deciding' the Guardianship Petition prevented her from presenting, or caused her to limit the presentation of, certain evidence in favor of the Guardianship Petition in an attempt to defeat the TPR." Id. at *3.

The Supreme Court was not moved by this argument. In rejecting Ms. George's assertion, the Court stated:

Here, the procedures used by the Family Court during the Hearing adequately protected George from the risk of erroneous deprivation of her parental rights. Although the Family Court stated it was "not deciding on guardianship" at the Hearing, it did not limit the parties' ability to introduce relevant evidence. Had George's counsel established the relevance of guardianship-related evidence, it does not appear on this record that the Family Court would have rejected it. We have considered the argument that the Family Court deprived George of a fair opportunity to oppose termination of her parental rights by its approach to handling the guardianship application in this case. However, we do not find favor with that argument because George had every incentive and opportunity to present her arguments against the termination of her parental rights at the hearing on the TPR motion. We note, for example, that during the TPR hearing, DFS called Great Aunt to testify. DFS was required to demonstrate that there were no willing and appropriate relatives with whom to place the Twins. It was also required to demonstrate that the TPR and adoption was the permanency goal that was in the Twins' best interests. Mother was given a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine and present evidence in opposition .... Because the procedure at the Hearing did not pose an undue risk of erroneous deprivation of George's parental rights, her due process rights were not violated.

The decision may be read in its entirety here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.