In re James G.

• Decision Date: 29 February 2008
• Docket Number: No. 625, Sept. Term, 2007.,625, Sept. Term, 2007.
• Citation: 943 A.2d 53,178 Md. App. 543
• Parties: In re JAMES G.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

943 A.2d 53

178 Md. App. 543

In re JAMES G.

No. 625, Sept. Term, 2007.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

February 29, 2008.

Piedad Gomez (Nancy S. Forster, Public Defender, on the brief), Baltimore, for appellant.

Michele A. Plummer (Legal Aid Bureau, Inc., on the brief), Baltimore, for appellee.

Panel: HOLLANDER, DEBORAH S. EYLER and SHARER, JJ.

HOLLANDER, J.

In this appeal, we must consider whether the Circuit Court for Baltimore City erred when it found that the Baltimore City Department of Social Services ("DSS" or "Department"), appellee, made "reasonable efforts" to reunify James G., appellee, with his father, Mr. James G., appellant.¹ That finding led the court to change James's permanency plan of parental reunification to placement with a relative for custody and guardianship. Mr. G. challenges that ruling on appeal. He asks: "Did the court abuse its discretion in terminating the permanency plan of reunification?"²

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the court erred in finding that DSS made reasonable efforts, and therefore it erred or abused its discretion in changing the permanency plan. Accordingly, we shall reverse and remand for further proceedings.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

James was born on July 26, 1996, to Mr. G. and Rhonda A. He lived with his mother until March of 2004. At that time, James began to live with appellant, because Ms. A.'s drug abuse prevented her from caring for James. A few months later, on August 6, 2004, Mr. G. was arrested for a violation of parole.³

On August 13, 2004, the Department filed a Petition with Request for Shelter Care, alleging that James was a child in need of assistance ("CINA").⁴ According to the Department, James had been "in the care of his father for the past four months," and they were "living with the father's lady friend, Deborah Holman."⁵ The Petition recounted appellant's incarceration, and also noted that Ms. A., a drug abuser, was not enrolled in treatment, was living a "transient lifestyle," and could not be contacted by the Department.⁶ By order of August 13, 2004, James was placed in the care of Ms. Holman pending an adjudicatory hearing.

At a hearing on September 29, 2004, the parties stipulated that James was a CINA. Appellant reported that he would be released from incarceration in October 2004.⁷ Because Ms. Holman was apparently faced with loss of her Section 8 housing as of November 1, 2004, the parties jointly recommended placement of James with his aunt, Joslyn B. Accordingly, on October 8, 2004, James was adjudicated a CINA and committed to the custody of the Department, with limited guardianship granted to Ms. B.

After a review hearing on August 29, 2005, the court placed James with his paternal cousin, Angela C.⁸ The court also issued an Order on that date, establishing a permanency plan of "reunification with parent or guardian," to be achieved by August 29, 2006.

A master for juvenile causes held a six-month review hearing on May 16, 2006. On May 24, 2006, pursuant to the master's recommendation, the court entered an Order continuing James's placement with his cousin, and continuing the permanency plan of reunification. However, it extended the target date for implementation until May 16, 2007.

At the next six-month review hearing, held by a master on December 12, 2006, the parties requested a "contested hearing" concerning the permanency plan. At that evidentiary hearing, held by a master on February 23, 2007, DSS sought to change James's permanency plan from parental reunification to placement with a relative for custody and guardianship.

Philomena Ukadike,⁹ a DSS case worker who had been assigned to James since April 2006, was the sole witness for DSS. She reported that James was in the fourth grade, with average grades, and was receiving therapy at Kennedy Krieger for minor behavioral issues. Ukadike recounted that, during the period between July 2006 and December 2006, she met with appellant just once, at the cousin's home. In addition, she stated: "[H]e came to the office once to see my supervisor." According to Ukadike, DSS and appellant had executed a "service agreement," which required appellant to obtain employment and housing, and to maintain contact with James and with the Department. However, the service agreement was not placed in the record, and no evidence was presented as to the Department's obligations, if any, under the agreement.

With regard to the Department's request to change James's permanency plan, Ukadike stated: "This child came into care in 2004. This is 2007. It's over 12 months and [appellant] hasn't provided documentation for employment or housing.... [W]e can't do reunification at this point." She acknowledged, however, that while Ms. C. was "interested" in being certified as a foster parent, she "hasn't expressed any interest [in adoption]. She [i.e., Ms. C] is hoping that the parents will really try to have a reunification with the child." The following exchange is also pertinent:

[APPELLANT'S COUNSEL]: Now with regard to the change in plan, you're recommending that the plan be changed to limited placement for custody and guardianship.

[UKADIKE]: Yes.

[APPELLANT'S COUNSEL]: And not adoption.

[UKADIKE]: No because child [sic] is 10 years old and I do know that the child is attached to his parents especially the father.

[APPELLANT'S COUNSEL]: Other than [appellant's] lack of more stable employment —

[UKADIKE]: And housing.

[APPELLANT'S COUNSEL]: — and lack of housing is there anything else that would prevent James from being returned to his father's care?

[UKADIKE]: No.

[APPELLANT'S COUNSEL]: And are you saying then that the lack of housing and the lack of adequate employment is what makes you want to change the plan from reunification to placement with a relative for custody and guardianship?

[UKADIKE]: Yeah because it's over two years this child has been in placement. [Appellant] you know for the past two years hasn't been able to fulfill those plans. (Boldface added.)

As to appellant's unemployment, Ukadike stated that appellant had met with her supervisor at the DSS office, who referred appellant to one organization, People Encouraging People, "to see if they could help him." That was the only referral made by DSS. According to Ukadike, appellant "call[ed] back and said that he did go [and] that they say they couldn't help him."¹⁰

Ukadike claimed she had discussed the issue of appellant's unemployment with him. But, she did not specify the number of conversations or the dates of such conversations. The following exchange is relevant:

[APPELLANT'S COUNSEL]: Did you ever discuss his employment status with him?

[UKADIKE]: Yeah he told me that he's looking for employment but he doesn't have enough experience and it's difficult for him to find employment and he's coming to [an] employment agency.

[APPELLANT'S COUNSEL]: [S]o you're saying he told you he's working through a temporary agency?

[UKADIKE]: Yes, and he said it's difficult for him to work a job.

[APPELLANT'S COUNSEL]: So does the work through the temporary employment agency in your mind count as employment?

[UKADIKE]: Well he said he has shown me his check. He said he's not making money to be able to have housing or anything.

[APPELLANT'S COUNSEL]: Did he appear to be working but just not making enough money?

[UKADIKE]: Well don't know if he's working. I don't know if he's working. (Emphasis added).

Later in the hearing, Ukadike was asked whether there was "anything else that the Department of Social Services can do to help [appellant] gain more gainful employment." She responded: "I don't know."

As to housing, Ukadike explained that the Department had not provided appellant with housing assistance, because he did not have a job. She noted that, for his address, appellant had provided her with the address of his girlfriend, Ms. Holman, with whom he and James had lived prior to appellant's incarceration. Testifying over appellant's hearsay objection, Ukadike said that she had contacted Holman, who advised that appellant was not living with her.¹¹ But, she indicated that appellant is her friend, and that he visits to help her because she is disabled.¹² Ukadike recounted that she scheduled a home visit with Holman to assess her residence, but Holman cancelled the appointment. Ukadike offered Holman two other dates for the home visit, both of which Holman rejected. Ukadike stated that, "[o]n that note I told her when you think it's appropriate to call me and I will come for the home assessment. I didn't hear from her again." Ukadike admitted that she did not contact Holman again, nor did she contact appellant to assess his housing situation. Nevertheless, Ukadike performed a clearance on Holman for purposes of visitation between appellant and James at her home, and stated that the results were "fine."

According to DSS, appellant exercised occasional visitation with James. The following exchange is pertinent:

[DEPARTMENT'S COUNSEL]: [B]esides the Thanksgiving visit since the last review court [sic] which was in May what has been the visitation schedule that father has had with James?

[UKADIKE]: [Appellant] use [sic] to go [to the cousin's home] to visit James. Sometimes take James out and bring him because I've seen him on one or more occasion that I went on a visit he brought James over to the caretaker so I could visit with James prior to Thanksgiving you know.

[DEPARTMENT'S COUNSEL]: What was the frequency?

[UKADIKE]: There was no frequency.... [Appellant] could call the child once a week or for the next two or three weeks the child wouldn't hear from him or see him. There was no frequency.

* * *

[DEPARTMENT'S COUNSEL]: And what is the visitation schedule mother is following?

[UKADIKE]: None because mother hasn't come to have a service agreement. However I've heard from the child that when the child do visit the godmother [sic]¹³ mother do come over there and see the child.

[...