In re M.
| Decision Date | 30 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 807, Sept. Term, 2020,807, Sept. Term, 2020 |
| Citation | 251 Md.App. 86,254 A.3d 1 |
| Parties | IN RE: M. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Submitted by: Rebecca Heyman-Magaziner, Phoenix, MD, for Appellant.
Submitted by: Joan F. Little (Charles H. Dorsey, Jr., Legal Aid Bureau, Inc., Baltimore, MD), Janet Hartge (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, MD), Tracy Miller (Tracy Miller Law, LLC, Columbia, MD), for Appellee.
Panel: Berger, Leahy, James R. Eyler (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
When M.1 was three-years old, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, sitting as a juvenile court, declared her to be a child in need of assistance ("CINA") due to neglect,2 removed her from her parents’ custody, and authorized relative placement with L.A. M. had already been living with L.A., her mother's maternal cousin, under an informal agreement since she was five months old.
For six years following the CINA adjudication, during which M.’s mother was largely absent, the Baltimore City Department of Social Services ("the Department" or "BCDSS") attempted to reunify M. with appellant, her father ("Father"). Obstacles and setbacks to reunification included Father's multiple incarcerations, living situations, and failure to care for M. during unsupervised visitations in a safe manner. In October 2019, after a series of incidents while in Father's care, eight-year-old M. wrote that she wished she "was dead." After temporarily suspending all visitation, the juvenile court ordered that family therapy and supervised visitation could resume, but that M. could decide whether to attend each visit.
By the time the COVID-19 pandemic was declared in March 2020,3 M. had not had recent contact with her mother, whose whereabouts are unknown; and she only had limited, voluntary, and supervised contact with Father. In contrast, her relationship with L.A. had remained one of continuous care and custody, resulting in what M., her therapist, and the juvenile court characterized as a strong mother-daughter bond.
Citing the long history of failure in reunifying M. with Father beyond supervised visitation and the unlikelihood that M. could be fully reunified safely within a reasonably foreseeable time, together with evidence that the lack of permanent placement endangers M.’s mental health, the Department, M., and L.A. asked the juvenile court to order custody and guardianship to L.A. and supervised visitation with Father. In October 2020, after an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court so ordered, and then closed the CINA case.
Father presents two questions for our review, which we have reorganized and recast as one with three subparts:4
For the reasons that follow, we hold that the juvenile court did not err or abuse its discretion in ordering custody and guardianship to L.A. or in closing the CINA case. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
M. was born in February 2011. M.’s mother has a history of substance abuse, mental health issues, and lack of stable housing. Father also has a history of incarceration and unstable housing, with periods of homelessness and unemployment. When M. was approximately five months old, L.A. was informally given primary responsibility for M.’s care, and M. has consistently been in L.A.’s care ever since.
Given the overarching concern about the length of M.’s CINA commitment as a factor in the juvenile court's grant of custody and guardianship to her relative, we will categorize relevant events in a timeline, corresponding to M.’s age as relevant events occurred.
During M.’s first three years, she had little contact with Father because he was incarcerated. For the next three years, M. only saw Mother a few days each month when L.A. had work-related travel.
April - June 2014 . On April 14, 2014, while L.A. was away on work-related travel, Mother took M. to daycare and was observed to be incapacitated by possible drug use. The Department was contacted. In June 2014, while the Department investigated, Mother threatened to remove M. from L.A.’s care and move her to a homeless shelter. When the Department was informed of Mother's threat, they made a request for shelter care.5 M. was removed from the home and custody of her parents on June 4, 2014.
June 2014. On June 5, 2014, after investigating reports of neglect and making home visits, the Department petitioned for shelter care for M., alleging that Mother neglected M. and that Father was unable to take steps to protect her from that neglect. Amongst other things, the Department alleged that Mother has a "history of abusing nonprescribed medications"; has engaged in unsuccessful drug treatment; has a history of mental health issues and unstable living arrangements; "has a history of leaving [M.] in the care of others for extended periods without making adequate arrangements"; and "failed to notify the caretaker to inquire about the well-being of [M.]." The Department also alleged that Father was "unavailable to protect [M.] at the time" because he was on a home-monitoring device following a 2012 robbery conviction, was unemployed, and was living with his father.
That same day, the court conducted an emergency shelter care hearing. At the hearing, Father was present and represented by counsel.6 The juvenile court granted the Department's request for shelter care, explaining that "continued residence in the home is contrary to the welfare of the child and it is not now possible to return the child to the home" because of Mother's mental health issues and her issues with homelessness. The court also ordered relative placement with L.A. and supervised visits with Father and Mother, pending an adjudicatory hearing on June 24, 2014.
On June 24, 2014, the adjudicatory hearing was held. The parties failed to reach an agreement concerning the placement of M. The court ordered relative placement with L.A. pending a contested hearing and set that hearing for August 1, 2014.
July/August 2014. Father was released from GPS monitoring in July. At the August 1, 2014 hearing, the parties stipulated to six facts, including that Mother has a history of abusing nonprescribed medications and fails to remain drug free (although, at the hearing, Mother contended that the medications were prescribed and that she was drug free at that time); that Mother has a history of mental health issues; that Mother has a history of leaving M. in the care of others for indefinite time periods without making adequate arrangements for her care; and that Father has a history of incarceration and was unavailable to protect M. at the time of her removal from Mother's care.
The court sustained these facts and deferred the disposition hearing to receive additional information and allow Mother to find housing. The court continued the prior shelter care arrangement and ordered shelter care with L.A., while granting supervised visitation to Father. The court also referred Mother to the Family Recovery Program. Finally, the court set a disposition hearing for October 9, 2014.
October 2014. The October 9 disposition hearing was postponed, but the court ordered M. to be placed in "shelter care with relative placement" with L.A. As justification, the court again referred to Mother's mental health issues and issues with homelessness. The court also ordered that Father "shall have 3 unsupervised day visits with the respondent and [then] it shall progress to unsupervised overnights."
November/December 2014. By December 2014, Father had completed parenting classes, obtained employment, and attended a therapy session with M. He had two overnight visits in November and December and other unsupervised visits. On December 17, however, he was charged with second degree assault and incarcerated.
January/February 2015. In January 2015, Father was still incarcerated, and Mother had tested positive for illegal drugs. The CINA disposition hearing was postponed from January 14, 2015 to February 12, 2015.
At the February 12 disposition hearing, the Department requested that M. be committed to them "for relative placement." On February 24, 2015, the juvenile court issued a written order adjudicating M. a CINA and committing her to the Department for relative placement with L.A. In its order, the court found that M. was placed with L.A. and "has done well with this placement." M. was attending daycare and weekly therapy under L.A.’s care. The court noted that Mother tested positive for illegal drugs in January 2015 and was discharged from her detoxification program for noncompliance. Finally, the court found that, although Father had engaged in parenting classes and taken M. to therapy, he was then incarcerated for violating his probation.
Although Father was incarcerated at the time of the February 12 hearing, he nevertheless participated. Father agreed that continuation of M.’s placement with L.A. was in her best interest. The court then set a ten-month review hearing for April 13, 2015.
April 2015. On April 13, 2015, a ten-month review hearing was conducted. Father had just been released from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- In re G.M.
- In re J.F.
-
In re H.P.
...the child has formed emotional attachments can cause potential emotional, developmental, and educational harm to the child[.]" In re M., 251 Md.App. at 127-28 (quotation marks and citations omitted). The record the juvenile court's determination that removing H.P. from Uncle's care would de......
-
In re M.A.
...contributed to delays extending this adoption case past August 29, 2021, and any resulting prejudice. Cf., e.g., In re M., 251 Md.App. 86, 119-20 (2021) (holding because evidentiary record refuted father's "contention that 'much of' the four-year period after the 24-month benchmark for reso......