In re Adoption No. T00130003
| Decision Date | 06 December 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 364,364 |
| Citation | 786 A.2d 803,141 Md. App. 645 |
| Parties | In re ADOPTION/GUARDIANSHIP NOS. T00130003 AND T00130004 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Joan Little (Rachel Markowitz, on the brief), Baltimore, for appellants.
C.J. Messerschmidt, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., on the brief), Baltimore, for appellee.
Argued before MURPHY, C.J., SALMON, and RAYMOND G. THIEME, Jr. (Ret'd, Specially Assigned), JJ.
RAYMOND G. THIEME, Jr., Judge (Retired, Specially Assigned).
On May 15, 2000, the Baltimore City Department of Social Services (the Department) filed a Petition for Guardianship with the Right to Consent to Adoption or Long Term Care Short of Adoption for the minor children, Dontae and Latisha W. The Petition, filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City Division for Juvenile Causes, requested that the children be placed with a relative. Carol W., the mother of the children, filed an objection to the Petition on May 30, 2000. Counsel for the children filed no objection and were thus deemed to have consented to the Petition.
Despite the Department's intention to have the children placed with a relative, as of January 2001 the children were still in foster care. Consequently, the children were granted an extension of time for discovery, and the court ordered evaluations be conducted by the Juvenile Court Medical Service Office prior to the settlement conference scheduled for February 2001. Based on purported changes in circumstances that occurred after the Petition was served, the children further sought the opportunity to file an objection to the Petition after the deadline had passed. This request was denied. Consequently, during the trial held on March 29, 2001, the children were not given the opportunity fully to present a case. The Department's Petition was granted and Carol W.'s parental rights were terminated.
The children subsequently filed this appeal on April 24, 2001, to raise the following questions:
I. Did the circuit court err in refusing to consider whether the children's changed circumstances warranted relief from the thirty-day response deadline to the show cause order?
II. Did the circuit court abuse its discretion in failing to consider evidence in the Court Medical reports indicating the inappropriateness of the termination of parental rights of Carol W. and the significance of the sibling bond between Latisha and Dontae?
III. Did the circuit court err in concluding that Latisha and Dontae's best interests called for the termination of Carol W.'s parental rights?
Latisha W, now eleven years old, was born on December 1, 1989 to Carol W. Latisha's father died on September 4, 1989, prior to her birth. Latisha lived with her mother and two siblings, Tylita R. and Ashley M.,1 until April 1993 when Carol W. was hospitalized after an attempted suicide. At that time Latisha went to live with Ashley M. and her father, Russell M.
The Department provided a great deal of supportive services to Carol W. and her family. Such measures included the purchase of food and clothing, in-home aide, and the location of an apartment with the initial payment of rent and the identification of potential employment. The Department also placed Carol W. in a drug treatment program. Carol W., however, did not follow through to obtain employment and failed to pay rent, which led to her eviction. She also continued to abuse drugs and was dismissed from the drug treatment course because of her failure to keep several appointments.
On December 14, 1993, pursuant to petitions by the Department, Latisha was found to be a Child in Need of Assistance (CINA) and was formally placed in the custody of Russell M. and his wife.
Dontae W., now five years old, was born on October 17, 1995, to Carol W. His father was never identified.2 On December 19, 1996, the Department filed a petition to have Dontae placed into shelter care. Additionally, as Latisha had been living alternately between Russell M. and Carol W., contrary to the December 14 order, the Department filed a Petition for Review as to Latisha's disposition. In making these petitions, the Department charged that Carol W. was providing inadequate care for the children3 and further alleged that on one occasion she had struck Latisha with a belt. Carol W. was arrested and incarcerated until March 29, 1997 as a result of the abuse. The children were placed in the foster care of one Ms. H. while determinations as to their continued living situations were pending.
On May 7, 1997, the court found Dontae to be a CINA and granted a general order of commitment to the Department. The court also rescinded the Order of Custody and Guardianship to Russell M. and his wife as to Latisha and granted a general order of commitment to the Department. At this time, Carol W. also informed the court that she had a hearing scheduled because of a violation of her probation and expected to have an extended incarceration. Consequently, the children remained in the care of Ms. H., though a stipulation was made that the children were to have regular visitation with their mother.
The children have remained in occasional contact with Carol W. despite the fact that she had been incarcerated until January 2, 2001. Though the children were able to visit their mother three times a year, their current caseworker was present for one visit in 1999 and noted that Latisha did not interact well with Carol W. and Dontae did not appear to recognize her.
Carol W. has made efforts to rehabilitate herself while incarcerated. She has taken various courses on addiction education, life skills and parenting, conflict resolution and even received her high school diploma. After her release, on January 5, 2001, she went to the Department and signed a service agreement to give her a second chance at raising her children. In doing so, she agreed to obtain housing, provide proof of employment and enroll in drug treatment.
Carol W. visited the children once following her release. During that visit, Dontae did not recognize Carol W. and instead identified Ms. H. as his mother. Another visit was scheduled by the caseworker for February, but Carol W. did not appear, nor did she make any efforts to reschedule the appointment. When the caseworker sought to contact Carol W., it was discovered that the phone had been disconnected.
At the time of the trial on March 29, 2001, Carol W. had not begun to comply with any of the provisions of the service agreement, nor did she have further contact with the children. This failure was emotionally damaging to Latisha.
On February 21, 2001, at the request of the children's counsel, the court ordered that Carol W. and the children attend a bonding assessment. The assessment was scheduled for March 13 2001. Notice was sent to Carol W. by her counsel, but she did not attend or respond in any manner. The assessment therefore evaluated the children individually, and a report was subsequently prepared by the Juvenile Court Medical Office (Medical Office).
The Medical Office concluded that Latisha had a very clear understanding of her situation. She expressed a desire to live with her mother, whom she loves, but only if Carol W. could be responsible. When asked what she would wish to do until her mother reaches such a point, Latisha responded that she would like to live with Russell M., whom she considers her stepfather. Though she stated that she loves Ms. H., she explained that she had more fun with Russell M.
The examiner indicated that Latisha and Dontae are very closely bonded. Latisha stated that she takes care of Dontae including making sure he brushes his teeth, making sure he is fine while in school, and walking him home after school. The examiner expressed concern, as Latisha stated corporal punishment is used on Dontae.
The report further noted that Latisha is well adjusted, though she may benefit from increased social interactions. The Medical Office also recommended that Latisha remain with Ms. H. in long term care. The report concluded by recommending against the termination of Carol W.'s parental rights, as it was suggested that such an action could be emotionally damaging to Latisha, who has not yet resolved the fact that she may never be able to return to her mother's care.
The assessment of Dontae disclosed that he is well adjusted and extremely bonded to his foster mother, Ms. H., his sister Latisha, and his foster sisters. Despite previous contact with Carol W., Dontae does not seem to know who she is and only considers Ms. H. to be his mother. The report noted that Ms. H. has shown interest in adopting Dontae. The only area of concern that was presented was the apparent corporal punishment of Dontae by Ms. H. and his older foster siblings. The Medical Office nonetheless recommended that Dontae remain in the home of Ms. H. with his sister and that counseling be sought to find alternatives for corporal punishment.
On June 10, 1998, when the permanency plan for Dontae and Latisha was first established, the Department sought to have the children placed with a relative, and the circuit court ordered the Department to investigate relative resources for the children. On July 14, 2000, a court order incorporated an agreement between all the parties to transition the children to the home of a maternal aunt for an eventual adoption. This agreement was conditioned on a Department background investigation of the aunt. By January 24, 2001, however, the children had still not been placed with a relative. This failure also led to a contested CINA proceeding.
The court decided to consolidate the CINA and parental termination proceedings and set a trial date for March 29, 2001. On that date, however, the court held a trial on the termination proceedings but chose not to proceed on the CINA review. The CINA review was later canceled, as it was not necessary to decide the issue after Carol...
To continue reading
Request your trial