In re Adoption/Guardianship C.E.

• Decision Date: 06 June 2019
• Docket Number: No. 77, Sept. Term, 2017,77, Sept. Term, 2017
• Citation: 464 Md. 26,210 A.3d 850
• Parties: IN RE: ADOPTION/GUARDIANSHIP OF C.E.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

464 Md. 26
210 A.3d 850

IN RE: ADOPTION/GUARDIANSHIP OF C.E.

No. 77, Sept. Term, 2017

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 6, 2019
Reconsideration Denied July 24, 2019

Joan F. Little (Legal Aid Bureau, Inc., Baltimore, MD) and Janet Hartge, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on briefs, for Appellants.

Karl-Henri Gauvin, Public Defender Panel Attorney (The Gauvin Law Firm, Baltimore, MD) and Jeffrey M. Dier, Public Defender Panel Attorney (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender of Maryland, Lutherville, MD), on briefs, for Appellees.

Reargued before: Barbera, C.J., Greene, McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, and Sally D. Adkins, (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned) JJ.

Getty, J.

464 Md. 32

Before us is a judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City declining to terminate the legal relationship between a mother, a father, and their child and ordering the child into the guardianship and custody of a relative. We are asked to consider whether allowing this child to remain indefinitely in the custody of the third party, without terminating the parental rights of the father or of the mother, constitutes a proper exercise of judicial discretion when evidence was presented at the termination of parental rights hearing that neither parent possesses the ability to ever safely care for the child. In reviewing this issue, we continue to follow this Court's precedent of more than a decade and affirm that the pursuit of the best interest of the child remains the overarching goal when considering the termination of parental rights ("TPR") pursuant to § 5-323 of the Family Law Article (hereinafter "FL") of the Maryland Code.

This Court first completed a comprehensive review of TPR proceedings in 2007, in In re Adoption/Guardianship of Rashawn H. , 402 Md. 477, 937 A.2d 177 (2007). Three years later, this Court, in In re Adoption/Guardianship of Ta'Niya C. , 417 Md. 90, 8 A.3d 745 (2010), reexamined TPR proceedings and confirmed the child's best interest remains the prevailing standard as outlined in Rashawn H. Following Rashawn H. and Ta'Niya C. , this Court specifically reviewed the unfitness prong of FL § 5-323, in In re Adoption/Guardianship of Amber R. , 417 Md. 701, 12 A.3d 130 (2011) and the exceptional circumstances prong of FL § 5-323, in In re Adoption/Guardianship of H.W. , 460 Md. 201, 189 A.3d 284 (2018).

464 Md. 33

Now, we seek to further clarify the circumstances under which a juvenile court must find that termination of parental rights is the proper recourse under either the unfitness prong or the exceptional circumstances

210 A.3d 854

prong of FL § 5-323.¹ We hold that in order to achieve the best interest of the child and to provide sufficient permanency for the child, it was an abuse of discretion for a juvenile court to decline to terminate the parental rights of the Father when a juvenile court finds that Father can never safely care for the child. Sufficient permanency for the child is not achieved when the child remains indefinitely in the guardianship and custody of a relative. Furthermore, we hold the juvenile court abused its discretion when it failed to recognize an exceptional circumstance justifying the termination of the parents' parental rights. Finally, it was an error of law for the juvenile court to change a child in need of assistance (hereinafter "CINA") permanency plan during a termination of parental rights hearing conducted pursuant to FL § 5-323 without issuing two separate orders pursuant to FL § 5-324. Accordingly, we shall vacate the judgment of the juvenile court and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BACKGROUND

C.E. (hereinafter "C.E." or "the child") is a male child born in May 2014 to C.D. (hereinafter "Mother")² and H.E. (hereinafter "Father"). C.E. was born two months premature and after birth was placed in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit of

464 Md. 34

Johns Hopkins Hospital. In time, he was transferred to the Mount Washington Pediatric Hospital.

Immediately after C.E.'s birth, a Baltimore City Department of Social Services (hereinafter "the Department") caseworker, Nia Noakes, responded to a "risk of harm" report and a request for a safety assessment of a newborn by Johns Hopkins Hospital. As a part of the safety assessment, Ms. Noakes examined Mother's home with both parents present. Ms. Noakes also consulted the Department's records to determine whether the family had a history with the Department.

Ms. Noakes discovered that the Department had removed Mother's other five children from her care over the past two decades. See In re C.E. , 456 Md. 209, 211, 172 A.3d 476 (2017). Mother first interacted with the Department in 1996.³ Id. C.E. was Mother's sixth child to be adjudged CINA.⁴ Id. Mother has a well-documented

210 A.3d 855

history of mental illness causing her to lash out against her children. Id. Her "previous mental health diagnoses include paranoia, adjustment disorder, major depression, somatization disorder, borderline personality disorder, mania, and bipolar affective disorder." Id. Mother has also demonstrated "fits of rage." Id. On numerous occasions, "juvenile courts repeatedly have found that [Mother] displayed a complete inability to care for her children, control her emotions, or effectively communicate with her children and the Department." Id. at 212, 172 A.3d 476.

464 Md. 35

After the home visit and subsequent research, Ms. Noakes held a Family Involvement Meeting ("FIM")⁵ to determine whether C.E. could be safely placed with either Mother or Father. Concerned with Mother's previous interactions with the Department, Ms. Noakes determined that C.E. would not be safe in her care. The Department also learned that Father could not care for C.E. because Father resided in a senior housing complex that did not allow children to reside at the property except for a short-term duration of two weeks.

The Department filed for emergency shelter care on July 10, 2014, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City (hereinafter "juvenile court")⁶ while C.E. was still at Mount Washington Pediatric Hospital. In late June or early July 2014, Mother telephoned her cousin, Ms. B., and advised that she could not take C.E. home from the hospital and asked for permission to provide Ms. B.'s contact information to Mount Washington Pediatric Hospital and the Department. Mother and Ms. B. had not been in contact for years prior to C.E.'s birth and had only reconnected when Mother found Ms. B. on Facebook. Ms. B. and her husband, Mr. B. consented. The Department reached out to Ms. B. and Mr. B. to conduct a background check and begin the placement process.

After a hearing in July 2014, the juvenile court granted the Department's request for temporary care and custody of C.E. By July 15, 2014, Mr. and Ms. B. had successfully completed the necessary department requirements. Upon C.E.'s hospital discharge on July 21, 2014, the Department placed C.E. with them where he has remained throughout his entire life.

464 Md. 36

During the summer of 2014, the Department facilitated the second FIM for both parents. Father entered into a service agreement with the Department that was in effect from July 11, 2014 to September 11, 2014, and committed to finding housing where he could reside with C.E. The Department also referred Father to the Center for Urban Families'⁷ parenting classes which occurred twice a week for three months. Father initially did not attend the classes but he eventually completed the weekly ten-week course on positive parenting skills. Father was also referred to Hebron House⁸ for anger management counseling.

210 A.3d 856

The Department continued to provide other services to the parents to achieve reunification with C.E. The Department facilitated regular supervised visits between C.E., Mother, and Father. The visits were scheduled weekly during 2014 and bi-weekly from 2015 to 2017. Initially the visits occurred supervised at the Mother's home for three months. However, the Department decided to move the visits to Department facilities due to environmental concerns. The Department provided the supervision during the visitation period and both parents attended most of the scheduled visits. These visits were occasionally marked with C.E.'s angry outbursts towards his Mother. On other occasions, the visits were characterized as generally positive interactions with Father.

After multiple postponements, the juvenile court found C.E. to be a child in need of assistance on June 16, 2015 and awarded custody to the Department for continued placement with his relatives, Mr. and Ms. B. Additionally, the supervised visitation was continued and Father was ordered to submit to a clinical evaluation by Court Medical Services.⁹ Mother appealed

464 Md. 37

the juvenile court's findings...