In re K.H.
| Decision Date | 18 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 193, Sept. Term, 2021,193, Sept. Term, 2021 |
| Citation | 264 A.3d 255,253 Md.App. 134 |
| Parties | IN RE: K.H., J.H., & D.H. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Submitted by: Piedad Gomez (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellant.
Submitted by: Beth R. Wanger (Legal Aid Bureau, Inc. on the brief), Rockville, MD, for Appellee.
Panel: Kehoe, Berger, Ripken, JJ.
Ripken, J. Appellant Y.H.L.1 ("Mother") appeals from an order of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, sitting as a juvenile court, which granted the petition of the Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services ("the Department") for guardianship with the right to consent to the adoption of Mother's natural children, K.H.,2 (born 3/14), J.H. (born 3/16), and D.H. (born 1/18), and terminated Mother's parental rights. According to Mother, the court erred in denying her motion for recusal and in terminating her parental rights. For the reasons that follow, we shall affirm the order of the juvenile court.
In March 2018, E.H.,3 the older maternal half-sister of K.H., J.H., and D.H., disclosed neglect and physical and sexual abuse by Mother and maternal grandmother ("Grandmother"), some of which was witnessed by Father, who did not intervene. E.H. was removed from Mother and Father's care and adjudicated CINA4 in April 2018, after which the Department began working with the younger H. children.5
Mother was arrested on charges of child abuse and neglect, and Father was arrested on charges of sexual abuse, child pornography, and failing to protect E.H. from Mother's abuse. Mother and Father were also detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE").6 Because neither parent was available to care for the children, the Department placed the H. children in foster care and filed a CINA petition.
In June 2018, E.H. disclosed to a social worker that Mother had abused K.H.—forcing her to eat by rubbing salsa or jalapenos on her arms and mouth, hitting her with a stick, and pushing against her eyeballs. E.H. said that Mother also force-fed medication to K.H. and slapped the child if she regurgitated the medication.
The juvenile court adjudicated the children CINA and instituted a permanency plan of reunification. The court placed the H. children with their maternal aunt, S.C., who had traveled with two of her own children from California to care for the H. children in the family home, and a family friend who lived in Maryland. In November 2018, S.C. announced her intention to return to California following what she perceived to be overly intrusive interference by the Department. S.C. nonetheless expressed a desire to obtain custody and move the children to California. The juvenile court determined that custody with S.C. was not then a viable option and placed the children in foster care, where they have remained.7
In November 2019, the juvenile court declined Mother's request for an Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children ("ICPC") investigation to approve placement of the children with S.C. in California.8 The court also suggested that the Department consider a change in permanency plan away from reunification.
In February 2020, the Department recommended that the juvenile court change the children's permanency plan to adoption by a non-relative, and the children's attorney agreed. According to the Department, it did not consider S.C. as a placement resource because the Code of Maryland Regulations ("COMAR") excludes individuals from being considered under the ICPC if they are not U.S. citizens or do not have a green card, and S.C., an undocumented immigrant, did not qualify. The Department was also concerned that S.C. could not care adequately for all the H. children, along with her own two minor children. The juvenile court adopted the Department's recommendation that the permanency plan for K.H., J.H., and D.H. change to adoption by a non-relative.9
On July 8, 2020, the Department filed a petition for guardianship with the right to consent to adoption or another permanent living arrangement in relation to K.H., J.H., and D.H., alleging that guardianship would be in the best interest of the children, who had been out of Mother and Father's care and custody since May 2018. The Department asserted that:
The conditions which led to the separation still persist, and similar conditions of a potentially harmful nature continue to exist. There is little likelihood that those conditions will be remedied at an early date so that the child[ren] can be returned to the biological parents in the immediate future and the continuation of the relationship between the biological parents and the child[ren] greatly diminishes the child[ren]’s prospects for early integration into a stable and permanent family.
The attorney for the children consented to the petition "upon the condition that the Respondent's current foster parent, A[.]T., is the adoptive resource." Father objected to the petition. Mother also objected, stating that the "family relationship is worth pursuing" and that maintaining that relationship was in the best interest of the children.
At a December 29, 2020 CINA review hearing, Mother opposed the permanency plan of adoption and expressed a continued desire to have the children placed with S.C. in California. The juvenile court stated it would need "more information about whether the family member in California is viable." The court further expressed concern over moving the children across the country because it would be another major disturbance to their lives.
The Department responded that, given the number of moves K.H. had already endured and the length of time D.H. and J.H. had been in their foster home with A.T., "it's unlikely that we will recommend removing these children from this placement." The children's attorney agreed that moving the children from their placement with A.T. would be "quite detrimental." The juvenile court ruled that it would be in the children's best interest to reaffirm the plan of adoption by a non-relative.
At a hearing on February 26, 2021, Father consented to the termination of his parental rights relating to K.H., J.H., and D.H. His consent was conditional upon them being adopted by A.T. Mother continued to object to termination of her parental rights.
The juvenile court held a contested guardianship/termination of parental rights ("TPR") hearing on March 1–3, 2021. Therein, Mother objected to TPR in favor of adoption by a non-relative. According to Mother, placement with her sister S.C., who had passed a home study in California, would permit the children to maintain a connection with their extended family.
K.H.’s therapist, Julia Wessel, who was accepted by the court as an expert in social work, testified that K.H. had been referred to her for concerns about "processing [K.H.’s] trauma" after "reenacting some traumatic memories" and K.H. stating that "her heart hurt" from missing her parents and siblings.10 Ms. Wessel initially diagnosed K.H. with an adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotion and conduct, as a victim of neglect and suspected physical abuse. Ms. Wessel later changed the diagnosis to the "more serious" unspecified anxiety disorder, as K.H.’s anxiety was found to drive most of her symptoms.
By December 2020, Ms. Wessel had observed that K.H. appeared sadder and more anxious—struggling to manage when she did not get help from her caregivers right away—and suffering from sleep issues and nightmares. Ms. Wessel opined that the lack of permanency had negatively impacted K.H.’s mental health.
Ms. Wessel found that, more recently, K.H. had become increasingly comfortable with A.T. and went to A.T. for support and reassurance. In Ms. Wessel's view, K.H. was developing a secure attachment to A.T., who appropriately addressed K.H.’s emotional, educational, and therapeutic needs and had created a safe and stable environment for the child. According to Ms. Wessel, without a caregiver who validated K.H. and believed she and her siblings had been abused, K.H.’s improvement in therapy would be hindered; A.T. provided that validation.
Tanya Kulprasertrat, the Department social worker assigned to the H. children, also accepted by the court as an expert in social work, testified that in her expert opinion, the children could not be safe in Mother's care given the severity of the physical and sexual abuse that the children, and especially K.H., had been found to suffer in Mother's home. Moreover, Mother's criminal case had not yet been resolved, and she remained incarcerated for an indeterminate amount of time, which hindered her participation in services the Department could offer.11
In Ms. Kulprasertrat's opinion, K.H. and J.H. had "some attachment to their mother," but D.H., removed from Mother's care at four months of age, had none.12 Additionally, although Mother sent approximately twenty-five to thirty letters and drawings to the children during the pendency of the case, K.H. is the only one of the three children who listened and stayed engaged as Ms. Kulprasertrat read the letters. The children were, however, strongly bonded to each other and to their older sisters.
Ms. Kulprasertrat explained that an ICPC investigation had in fact been completed and approved placement of the children with S.C. in California, but she nonetheless did not believe the children would be safe with S.C., as they have "a very minimal attachment to their aunt" and do not interact much with her during their monthly video calls, instead crying or talking strangely to the camera. In addition, Ms. Kulprasertrat noted that S.C. had never asserted that she believed E.H.’s disclosures of Mother's abuse and that lack of validation of the children's feelings and memories would undermine their wellbeing.
Ms. Kulprasertrat also testified that placement with S.C. would require a cross-country move to a state with which the children are not familiar, when they are well adjusted to...
To continue reading
Request your trial