In re SU.N.
| Docket Number | 793-2023 |
| Decision Date | 18 January 2024 |
| Parties | IN RE: SU.N., SA.N., & SO.N. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
1
IN RE: SU.N., SA.N., & SO.N.
No. 793-2023
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
January 18, 2024
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF MARYLAND UNREPORTED [*]
Circuit Court for Howard County Case Nos. C-13-JV-19-000016, C-13-JV-19-000017, and C-13-JV-20-000022
Berger, Arthur, Raker, Irma S. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
OPINION
BERGER, J.
This appeal arises from a judgment, entered in the Circuit Court for Howard County, sitting as the juvenile court, altering the permanency plans of three children, all of whom had been previously declared children in need of assistance ("CINA"), from reunification with the parents (referred to individually as "Mother" and "Father") to adoption by a relative. Mother noted an appeal from that judgment, presenting several questions for our review.[1] For clarity, we have rephrased and consolidated those questions into a single question:[2]
Whether the juvenile court erred in changing the children's permanency plan from reunification to adoption
Finding no error, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mother and Father are the parents of three children: Su.N., born in June 2016; Sa.N., born in December 2017; and So.N., born in January 2020. In June 2018, the police and
Child Protective Services ("CPS") responded to Mother's home after receiving a report that Su.N. and Sa.N. were being tied to their beds. A safety plan was put into place, and Mother was informed that she could not tie the children to their beds. The family received follow-up services until November 2018.
February 2019 - Su.N. and Sa.N. declared CINA
On January 15, 2019, the Howard County Department of Social Services (the "Department") received a report that Su.N. had been "tied tightly to the bed, her arms behind her back, with a cloth around her arms and torso." Mother later stated that she "was swaddling the child" because the child "doesn't sleep well at night." On January 16, 2019, CPS responded to the home and found Su.N. "bound and tied in an elaborate knot work on the bed." The child "was on her stomach and had a blanket over her head." Sa.N. was also found bound and in bed. It was noted that the home "was very cluttered" and had "no smoke detectors"; that Mother had occasion to leave the children alone and unattended in the home; and that Mother had been feeding the children unscreened breastmilk that had been given to her. It was also noted that Mother and Father had a history of domestic violence and that Mother had obtained a protective order against Father, which caused Father to become homeless.
Shortly thereafter, the Department filed petitions in the juvenile court requesting that Su.N. and Sa.N. be declared CINA based on the above allegations.[3] In February 2019,
the court sustained the Department's allegations and found the children to be CINA. The children were subsequently placed in foster care. The parents thereafter began visiting with the children for supervised visits two times per week.
In or around May 2019, Mother was charged criminally with child abuse and neglect based on the allegations that she had tied the children in their beds. As a result of those charges, Mother was prohibited from having in-person contact with the children. Mother was also prohibited from leaving the State except for employment purposes.
June 2019 - Review hearing
In June 2019, the parties returned to court for a review hearing. The court found that the parents had made some progress in eliminating the need for Departmental involvement. The court ordered that the children's permanency plan be one of reunification with the parents. The court found that the Department had made reasonable efforts to eliminate the need for removal of the children.
July 2019 - Su.N. and Sa.N. move to California
In July 2019, the children relocated to California to live with their maternal aunt, Ms. B., and her husband, Mr. B. Mother and Father agreed with the relocation. A social worker in California was assigned to the case and was responsible for sending monthly reports to the Department. Due to the no-contact order in her criminal case, Mother's
contact with the children was thereafter limited to video calls, and the children were made available for those calls every weekday.
November 2019 - Review hearing
In November 2019, the parties returned to court for a review hearing. The court noted that, although the children had moved to California, all parties agreed that the permanency plan should remain one of reunification with the parents. The court found that the Department had made reasonable efforts to finalize the children's permanency plan. The court also found that the children were doing well in Mr. and Ms. B's care.
January and February 2020 - So.N. born and declared CINA
In January 2020, the Department received a report that Mother had given birth to a child. The Department contacted Mother and Father about the report, but neither parent was willing to cooperate with the Department. A subsequent investigation revealed that Mother had in fact given birth to a child, So.N. The Department learned that Mother had left the State of Maryland, despite her pending criminal charges, and given birth to So.N. in Louisiana in an attempt to have the child not be under the authority of the Department.
Upon learning of So.N.'s birth, the Department filed a petition requesting that the child be declared a CINA and that the parents be ordered to produce the child. At the hearing that followed, the parents refused to disclose the child's location. Under threat of contempt, the parents ultimately revealed that the child had been placed with relatives in California (not Mr. and Ms. B). So.N. was eventually located, and a CINA hearing was held. In February 2020, So.N. was declared CINA and placed with Mr. and Ms. B.
June and September 2020 - Review hearings
In June and September 2020, the parties returned to court for review hearings. Following those hearings, the court ordered that the permanency plan remain one of reunification. The court found that the Department had made reasonable efforts to finalize the children's permanency plan.
Up to that point, the parents had been engaging in video calls with the children, but the frequency of those calls had diminished. In or around September 2020, the parents stopped contacting the children for video calls.
March 2021 - Review hearing
In March 2021, the Department requested that all three children's permanency plans be changed from reunification to adoption by a relative. A hearing was held before a Magistrate, and, following that hearing, the Magistrate recommended granting the Department's request. Mother and Father filed exceptions to the Magistrate's recommendation regarding a change in the children's permanency plan.
In May 2021, Mother was acquitted of all criminal charges related to her binding Su.N. and Sa.N. in their beds. In August 2021, the parents traveled to California to visit with the children, but the visits did not occur. The parents went to California again in November 2021 and had several visits with the children. Around the same time, the parents resumed having regular video calls with the children.
December 2021 - Exceptions hearing
In December 2021, the juvenile court held the first of several evidentiary hearings on Mother's and Father's exceptions to the Magistrate's recommendation that the children's permanency plan be changed from reunification to adoption. At that hearing, Markeita Matthews, a social worker for the Department, testified that she had been working with the family since July 2019. Ms. Matthews stated that, when she took over the case, the record contained several service agreements, but none of those had been signed by either parent. Ms. Matthews testified that she subsequently drafted and provided to the parents a service agreement in September 2019, September 2020, November 2020, January 2021, and May 2021. Ms. Matthews stated that neither parent signed any of those service agreements. Ms. Matthew testified that, despite the lack of an executed service plan, the Department provided, and planned to continue to provide, various services to the parents, including travel assistance for the parents' visits to California.
According to Ms. Matthews, the most recent service plan included the following items/tasks: that all visits between the parents and the children be supervised; that Mother complete a parenting evaluation and take parenting classes; that Mother complete a psychiatric evaluation and participate in mental health therapy; and that the parents engage in couples therapy to address incidents of domestic violence. Ms. Matthews confirmed that, as of the date of the hearing, Mother had completed some of those items/tasks, including engaging in therapy, taking parenting classes, and taking domestic violence classes. Ms. Matthews testified that the Department was nevertheless still concerned about
Mother's parenting capabilities. Ms. Matthews stated that the Department's concerns were due in large part to the fact that Mother "did not see anything wrong with the way she was caring for the children - the tying them down and the events that led up to their removal from the home."
As to the children's relationship with Mr. and Ms. B., Ms. Matthews testified that the interactions were "very good," that the children "love them and adore them," and that the children were "very bonded with [them]." Ms. Matthews noted that the two elder children had been diagnosed with some developmental disabilities and had been receiving therapy and other services to address them. Ms. Matthews stated that Mr. and Ms. B. were "involved" in those programs and that the children's providers had no concerns about either child's well-being. Ms. Matthews testified that there were no concerns about the youngest child's development, either.
Ms....
To continue reading
Request your trial