In re Adoption of Tatianna B.
Decision Date | 03 December 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 36, Sept. Term, 2010.,36, Sept. Term, 2010. |
Citation | 9 A.3d 502,417 Md. 259 |
Parties | In re ADOPTION/Guardianship OF TATIANNA B. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Tamara D. Sanders, Asst. Public Defender (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for appellant.
Ann M. Sheridan, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for appellee.
Argued before BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY, ADKINS and BARBERA, JJ.
The present case involves a termination of parental rights for unfitness, based upon the juvenile judge's determination that the mother, Hyacinth M., "pose[d] an unacceptable risk to ... [the] future safety" of her three-year-old daughter, Tatianna B. During the course of the proceedings, the judge permitted a licensed clinical social worker, Dianna McFarlane, who concededly, by both Ms. M.'s counsel and the State, was qualified to testify as an expert in social work, to opine regarding the risk of future harm to Tatianna B. were she to return to Ms. M.'s household, i.e., a "risk and safety assessment." The juvenile court, more specifically, determined that, because Ms. McFarlane was "broadly qualified in the area of social work," she could testify in the "areas of child abuse and neglect, children in foster care, permanency planning, adoption, and risk and safety assessment."
It is from this ruling, under an abuse of discretion standard, that we are asked to hold that an expert witness, qualified in the area of social work, should not have been permitted to testify in the area of risk assessment. 1 We shall hold, however,that the juvenile judge did not abuse her discretion by qualifying a licensed clinical social worker as an expert witness in social work and permitting her to opine regarding, inter alia, risk and safety assessment.
On December 8, 2009, the TPR hearing regarding the parental rights of Ms. M. commenced before Judge Cynthia Callahan in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, sittingas a juvenile court, during which the Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services asked the court to qualify Dianna McFarlane, a licensed clinical social worker, as an expert. Following voir dire of Ms. McFarlane, Ms. M.'s counsel objected:
Judge Callahan overruled Ms. M.'s counsel's objection:
Thereafter, Ms. McFarlane testified that she is licensed by the State of Maryland in the field of clinical social work, pursuant to Section 19-302(e) of the Health Occupations Article, the qualifications of which require education and training. She informed the judge that she possesses a master's degree in the field of social work and has six years' experience working for the Department. As to her familiarity with the case, she stated that it was assigned to her in her role as a foster careworker, after Tatianna B. was adjudicated as a child in need of assistance.2 Ms. McFarlane, then, laid out the factors she considered in her assessment regarding the risk to Tatianna B., if she were to be placed back into the care of Ms. M. Prior to the time that Ms. McFarlane gave her opinion based upon her risk assessment, the following colloquy ensued:
Emphasis added.
Ms. M. contends that Judge Callahan erred "by accepting Ms. McFarlane as an expert witness capable of determining whether Ms. M. posed a risk to Tatianna [B.]...." The State argues, conversely, that it is not an abuse of discretion to qualify a licensed clinical social worker as an expert in social work, with experience and training in risk assessment, permitting him or her to testify regarding the risk of future harm to a child in a household. The State contends, moreover, that "Ms. McFarlane was eminently qualified to testify as an expert witness in this case."
In determining whether Judge Callahan properly qualified Ms. McFarlane as an expert in social work and permitted her to opine regarding the risk of future harm to Tatianna B. were she to be returned to Ms. M.'s household, we look to Rule 5-702, which provides:
Expert testimony may be admitted, in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if the court determines that the testimony will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. In making that determination, the court shall determine (1) whether the witness is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, (2) the appropriateness of the expert testimony on the particular subject, and (3) whether a sufficient factual basis exists to support the expert testimony.
In Blackwell v. Wyeth, we noted that, under Rule 5-702, "the admissibility of expert testimony is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous." 408 Md. 575, 618, 971 A.2d 235, 261 (2009), quoting Wilson v. State, 370 Md. 191, 200, 803 A.2d 1034, 1039 (2002). See also Rollins v. State, 392 Md. 455, 500, 897 A.2d 821, 847 (2006) () (citations omitted).
The issue before us in the present case is, solely, whether a licensed clinical social worker can qualify as an expert witness in social work and opine in a TPR hearing regarding the safety and risk of a child were she to be returned to her mother's care. In order to practice clinical social work, a person must be licensed as such. Maryland Code (1981, 2009 Repl.Vol.), Section 19-301(2) of the Health Occupations Article. Licensure requires that a clinical social worker:
Section 19-302(e). The practice of social work involves "apply [ing] the theories, knowledge, procedures, methods, or ethics derived from a formal educational program in social work to restore or enhance social functioning of individuals, couples, families, groups, organizations, or communities through," inter alia, "assessment," "formulating diagnostic impressions," "planning," and "intervention." Maryland Code (1981, 2009 Repl.Vol.), Section 19-101(m)(1) of the Health Occupations Article. A licensed clinical social worker, further, may supervise other social workers; evaluate, diagnose, and treat psychosocial conditions, mental and emotional conditions and impairments, and mental disorders; as well as provide psychotherapy. Section 19-101(m)(4).
In the present case, the record before Judge Callahan established that the judge did not abuse her discretion in qualifying Ms. McFarlane as an expert in social...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fusco v. Shannon
...the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.” In re Adoption/Guardianship of Tatianna B., 417 Md. 259, 263, 9 A.3d 502 (2010) (citing Blackwell v. Wyeth, 408 Md. 575, 618, 971 A.2d 235 (2009)) (quoting Wilson v. State, 370 Md. 191, 20......
-
Yiallouros v. Tolson
...as her curriculum vitae or the fact that she had studied and dealt with the relevant labor markets. See In re Adoption/Guardianship of Tatianna B., 417 Md. 259, 268, 9 A.3d 502 (2010) (depth of the expert's experience with the subject goes to the weight of her testimony, not the admissibili......
-
In re A.H.
...authority to decide issues that are neither raised in nor decided by the trial court. Mother contends that, in In re Adoption of Tatianna B., 417 Md. 259 (2010), the Court of Appeals held that only licensed clinical social workers may testify as experts in safety and risk assessment. Her ar......
-
Carter v. NEPAli Am. Cultural Ctr. of Balt.
... ... Motsco's knowledge went to the weight of his ... testimony, not ... the admissibility of his testimony. In re Adoption of ... Tatianna B. , 417 Md. 259, 268 (2010) (citing Terumo ... Med. Corp. v. Greenway , 171 Md.App. 617, 623-24 (2006)) ... ...