In re L.B.
| Decision Date | 01 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 2816,Sept. Term, 2016,2816 |
| Citation | 145 A.3d 655,229 Md.App. 566 |
| Parties | In re: Adoption/Guardianship of L.B. and I.L. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by: Nenutzka C. Villamar (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender on the brief) all of Baltimore, MD, for Appellant.
Argued by: Shannon M. Weaver (Maryland Legal Aid Bureau, Inc. of Bel Air, MD), Hilma J. Munson (Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General on the brief) all on the briefs, for Appellee.
Panel: Graeff, Friedman, James R. Eyler, (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Graeff, J.K.H., appellant, challenges an order issued by the Circuit Court for Harford County terminating her parental rights (“TPR”) to her two sons, L.B. and I.L.1 Ms. H. presents three questions for our review:
For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm judgment of the circuit court.
The Harford County Department of Social Services (“DSS” or the “Department”), an appellee, took interest in L.B. at the time of his birth, when it received information that Ms. H. was using Percocet during her pregnancy. That allegation of neglect ultimately was ruled “unsubstantiated” by DSS, but due to concerns about Ms. H.'s mental health and substance abuse, a DSS caseworker instituted a “Safety Plan,” which required that Ms. H. not be left alone with her children.2 DSS subsequently transferred the case to the Continuing Services department so further services could be provided to the family.
In March 2011, Bethany Fisher, a DSS Child Protective Services caseworker assigned to L.B.'s case, had L.B.'s parents sign a new Safety Plan. Ms. Fisher was concerned about Ms. H.'s mental health because Ms. H. was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, but she was not receiving treatment or taking her medication. Ms. Fisher also was concerned about Ms. H.'s “continuing use of drugs.” Accordingly, the terms of the March 24, 2011, Safety Plan required that Ms. H. continue her mental health treatment and submit to substance abuse evaluation and urinalysis.
Ms. H. partially complied with the March 2011 Safety Plan. She “did get back into mental health treatment,” but “she was not consistent[ly] going to her counseling sessions.” Ms. H. completed substance abuse evaluation, and she submitted to random urinalysis. Ms. Fisher referred Ms. H. to various providers of mental health services, substance abuse services, infant and toddler resources, housing resources, and food assistance, but Ms. H. only “complied with some of them.”
In April 2011, Ms. Fisher implemented a “Service Plan,” which “identifie[d] the tasks [DSS was] asking the family to do long term.” The terms of the April 2011 Service Plan were similar to those of the March 2011 Safety Plan. As before, Ms. H. only partially complied with the plan.
By June 9, 2011, Ms. H. was “making progress,” so she and Ms. Fisher executed a new Safety Plan that permitted Ms. H. to be alone with her children. In June 2011, DSS received a new report indicating that Ms. H. was not properly supervising her older child, S.M.3 Accordingly, Ms. Fisher updated the Safety Plan to require that Ms. H. “appropriately supervise the children at all times.”
At some point between August and September 2011, Ms. H. and her children were evicted from their home. Ms. H. stayed with friends and family until she could find permanent housing. During that period of time, there were some “domestic violence issues going on,” and in August 2011, Ms. H. filed for a protective order against L.B.'s father, Mr. B.
On October 3, 2011, Ms. Fisher contacted Ms. H.'s mother, J.H., who informed her that, on the previous evening, Ms. H. and Mr. B. had come to her apartment in an intoxicated state. Ms. Fisher subsequently had difficulty contacting Ms. H. When she called on October 6, 2011, Mr. B. answered Ms. H.'s phone, even though there was an active protective order prohibiting him from being in contact with Ms. H. Ms. Fisher went to Mr. B.'s mother's house and found L.B., who was “very dirty” and had “red bumps or a rash on his forehead.” Ms. H.'s family told Ms. Fisher that Ms. H. had “shown up” the night before with a bottle of alcohol in her purse, and she appeared to be intoxicated. Ms. Fisher then “issued shelter care papers,” removed L.B. from Ms. H.'s care, and placed him in foster care.4 She later testified that L.B. was removed because Ms. H.
L.B.'s foster parent later testified that, when L.B. was first placed with her, he was behind on his immunizations, was experiencing difficulty sleeping, and had a red rash on his face and a staph infection “around his diaper area.” She testified that her experience with Ms. H. had been unpleasant and confrontational. At one point, she filed for a Peace Order after Ms. H. posted “threatening remarks” on Facebook.
On October 7, 2011, Ms. Fisher petitioned the circuit court to designate L.B. a Child in Need of Assistance (“CINA”).5 On October 26, 2011, the court found that DSS's allegations were substantiated and designated L.B. a CINA.
At some point after L.B. was placed in foster care, Ms. H.'s mother, J.H., offered to be “a resource” for him. Ms. Fisher conducted a “home study,” but she did not approve her request to care for L.B. because J.H. was already caring for Ms. H.'s other child, and Ms. Fisher was concerned about J.H.'s ability to care for both at the same time. Another DSS worker who participated in the evaluation testified that they had further concerns that J.H. had mental health issues of her own, that she tried to cover up Ms. H.'s mental health issues, and she was not “going to be able to work with the department and be honest about the relationship that she had with [Ms. H].”
Ms. Fisher continued working with Ms. H. after L.B. was removed from her care. Although Ms. H. attended weekly visits with L.B., Ms. Fisher noted that Ms. H. “was not making very much progress regarding her housing situation” or “doing very much regarding trying to get things together for [L.B.] to be able to come back home to her.” Ms. H. submitted to random urinalysis and tested negative each time, but she failed to attend her mental health sessions.
On October 7, 2011, Ms. Fisher transferred L.B.'s case to Renee Little in the DSS foster care in-take unit.6 Ms. Little supervised biweekly visits, noting that, “for the most part,” Ms. H. was attentive and appropriate around L.B.
In November 2011, Ms. H. obtained Section 8 housing with the assistance of DSS. DSS conducted a home inspection and deemed the home appropriate for L.B.
On November 15, 2011, a psychologist conducted a psychological evaluation of Ms. H. The psychologist testified that Ms. H. was a particularly difficult client to interview, and he had concerns about her credibility. He diagnosed Ms. H. “as having Bipolar One Disorder,” although he noted this diagnosis was “tentative” because she denied “any history of symptoms that would be consistent.” He also diagnosed Ms. H. as having “poly substance abuse” and “a personality disorder with histrionic and anti-social features.” The psychologist testified that he was concerned that, “without treatment, her prognosis was very poor.”
On December 6, 2011, Ms. H. signed a Service Agreement requiring that she maintain stable and safe housing, secure employment, submit to random urinalysis, and submit to psychological evaluation and mental health counseling. Ms. H.'s compliance was tenuous at first, but it subsequently improved.
At the time Ms. Little received L.B.'s case, Ms. H. was receiving mental health treatment from “Alliance,” but in December 2011, Ms. H. was “discharged” from the facility “due to non compliance.”7 Ms. H. then unsuccessfully sought treatment from “Upper Bay,” who she claimed did not return her phone calls. On January 4, 2012, Ms. H. began receiving treatment from “Community Behavioral Services,” and she was “actively participating in counseling” during the time Ms. Little had the case. Both Ms. H. and L.B.'s father completed a seven-week parenting skills course. Ms. H. “participated sporadically with Alpha's Glory to get some additional support.” She also submitted to random urinalysis as required.
By February 2012, Ms. H.'s compliance had improved to the extent that DSS held a Family Involvement Meeting “to talk about reunification.” At that point, DSS increased Ms. H.'s visitation with L.B., the visits became extended and unsupervised, and DSS moved the visit location to J.H.'s residence.
In February 2012, L.B.'s case was transferred to Caitlin Salmon who, at the time, was a foster care continuing worker. During her time with L.B.'s case, Ms. Salmon facilitated visits with L.B. Beginning on March 20, 2012, Ms. H. began to have overnight visits with L.B.
Ms. Salmon testified that, for the most part, “things were going pretty well.” Ms. H. was “pretty consistent” and always tested negative when asked to do urinalysis. There were, however, some incidents that concerned Ms. Salmon. L.B.'s foster parents reported that L.B. was “extremely lethargic” when he returned from his first...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Action Comm. for Transit, Inc. v. Town of Chevy Chase
-
In re W.W.
...the ‘fundamental right of parents generally to direct and control the upbringing of their children.’ " In re Adoption/Guardianship of L.B. , 229 Md. App. 566, 588-89, 145 A.3d 655 (2016) (quoting Brandenburg v. LaBarre , 193 Md. App. 178, 186, 996 A.2d 939 (2010) ) (in turn, quoting Koshko ......
- In re W.W.
-
Tonya M. v. Washoe Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. (In re T.L.)
...order. A party who is not aggrieved by a judgment or other final ruling has no right to appeal."); In re Adoption/Guardianship of L.B., 229 Md.App. 566, 145 A.3d 655, 674 (2016) (holding that the termination of parental rights means "the parent has no standing to challenge future matters re......