In re X.R.
| Decision Date | 02 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1051, 1052 and 1054, Sept. Term, 2021 |
| Parties | IN RE: X.R., X.R., K.D. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by: Julia Roberson (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellant.
Argued by: Janet Hartge (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellee.
Panel: Wells, C.J., Shaw, Zic, JJ.
Wells, C.J. Two of the Appellant's ("Mother") children, Child 1 and Child 3, while in her care, were sexually abused by their half-brother. Another of Mother's children, Child 2, witnessed the abuse of Child 1.1 The Circuit Court for Baltimore County, sitting as a juvenile court, found Child 1 and Child 2 to be children in need of assistance ("CINA") and placed them with the Appellee ("the Department of Social Services" or "the Department"). While the court did not find Child 3 to be a CINA, it did remove Child 3 from Mother's custody and awarded custody to Child 3's father, who, the Department determined, was an appropriate person to entrust with Child 3's care.
Mother now appeals from that order and raises the following issues which we rephrase for clarity:2
For the following reasons, we answer "no" to both questions and affirm.
Mother is the biological mother of six children. The youngest are Child 1, Child 2, and Child 3, ages eight, ten, and six respectively. The father of Child 1 and Child 2 is deceased. Child 3 has a different father who resides in Columbia, Maryland with his sister and her two children.
In February 2021, the Department received a report detailing sexual abuse that Child 1 suffered at the hands of her 13-year-old half-brother, R.3 The Department conducted a forensic interview in which Child 1 disclosed that R penetrated her vaginally and anally. Child 2 further disclosed seeing R with Child 1 and stated that R's pants were down. Child 3 was also forensically interviewed and described R touching her buttocks and vagina with his buttocks. Child 3 further described feeling pain when R sat on her and "used his stomach to press against her butt," which Child 3 described as feeling as if her "body was falling apart."
Mother subsequently agreed to a safety plan with the Department wherein she agreed not to allow any contact between R and the three children, and that R would reside with his maternal grandmother. On April 10, 2021, R was charged with second degree rape and assault. On the same day, Mother brought R back into the home allowing contact between R and the three children. On April 13, 2021, Mother took R to the hospital after R reported experiencing hallucinations.
On April 15, 2021, the Department removed all three children from the home and conducted interviews with them. In Child 1's interview she described being "scared that [R] had returned to the home, as she was worried that he would sexually abuse her again." Child 1 and Child 3 both denied being further sexually abused by R over the weekend. However, Child 1 did report feeling pain in her private parts since R had returned to the home. All three children were subsequently sheltered by the Department and placed in foster care. After being placed into foster care, Child 3's father was identified and after the Department determined him to a be a fit custodian, Child 3 was transferred to his care.
On April 16, 2021, the Department filed CINA petitions and requested continued shelter care for the three children. After continuing the shelter care hearing, the juvenile court eventually ordered that the three children should remain in shelter with the Department. On May 20, 2021, the court granted the Department's request for a continuance of the adjudicatory hearing but granted Child 3's father's request to have Child 3 placed in his care pending adjudication.
A magistrate held a CINA adjudicatory hearing on May 27, 2021 and recommended that all three children be found to be CINAs and recommended continued placement in foster care and that Child 3's father be granted custody of Child 3. Mother subsequently filed exceptions to the magistrate's recommendations and requested a de novo hearing in front of a judge.
On August 30, 2021, the Department filed amended CINA petitions, and a circuit court judge held a de novo hearing on the amended petitions. Between the time the children were removed from the home and the August 30, 2021 CINA proceedings, the staff at the children's school reported improvements in their school attendance and engagement. With respect to Child 1 and Child 2, the positive improvement was largely attributed to the structure provided by the foster parent. For Child 3, her counsel advised the court that Child 3 "seemed happy, she seemed at home, she seemed at ease, and she seemed to be thriving."
At the adjudication stage, the parties stipulated to the facts as described in the Department's petitions and the court found that the allegations had been proven by a preponderance of the evidence. At the dispositional stage, the juvenile court found Child 1 and Child 2 to be CINAs and committed them to the Department's custody with continued placement in foster care. Regarding Child 3, the juvenile court did not find her to be a CINA but did award custody of Child 3 to her father. Mother subsequently filed this timely appeal.
When presented with a juvenile court's findings in CINA proceedings, an appellate court will apply "three distinct but interrelated standards of review." In re J.R. , 246 Md. App. 707, 730, 232 A.3d 324 (2020) (quoting In re Adoption/Guardianship of H.W. , 460 Md. 201, 214, 189 A.3d 284 (2018) ).
The juvenile court's factual findings are reviewed for clear error. Whether the juvenile court erred as a matter of law is determined "without deference;" if an error is found, we then assess whether the error was harmless or if further proceedings are required to correct the mistake in applying the relevant statute or regulation. Finally, we give deference to the juvenile court's ultimate decision in finding a child in need of assistance, and "a decision will be reversed for abuse of discretion only if ‘well removed from any center mark imagined by the reviewing court and beyond the fringe of what that court deems minimally acceptable.’ "
Id. at 730–731, 232 A.3d 324 (citations omitted); see also In re Adoption/Guardianship No. 3598 , 347 Md. 295, 312, 701 A.2d 110 (1997) ().
As to Mother's claims alleging error by the juvenile court in denying her custody of the three children, our standard of review is as follows:
[W]e point out three distinct aspects of review in child custody disputes. When the appellate court scrutinizes factual findings, the clearly erroneous standard of [Rule 8-131(c)] applies. [Secondly,] [i]f it appears that the chancellor erred as to matters of law, further proceedings in the trial court will ordinarily be required unless the error is determined to be harmless. Finally, when the appellate court views the ultimate conclusion of the chancellor founded upon sound legal principles and based upon factual findings that are not clearly erroneous, the chancellor's decision should be disturbed only if there has been a clear abuse of discretion.
Mother first argues that the juvenile court erred when it declared Child 1 and Child 2 to be CINAs because the court's findings "failed to establish that [Mother] was unable to care for them"—a required finding under the second prong of CINA. Mother contends that the violation of the safety plan represents a mere "isolated mistake," due to a "misunderstanding respecting the safety plan." In Mother's view, the Department failed to meet its burden of presenting sufficient evidence showing that Mother's child-endangering conduct will likely recur in light of the steps taken by Mother to ensure that R would have no further contact with the children.
Mother further contends that even if the juvenile court properly found Child 1 and Child 2 to be CINAs, the court failed to establish that removing the children from her care at disposition was necessary. First, Mother argues that the proper standard of proof for denying custody at the dispositional stage is clear and convincing evidence. Mother grounds her argument in the fact that the dispositional stage requires a "more stringent standard of proof" than the adjudication stage, and that the only logical conclusion would be that the next more stringent burden of proof must be clear and convincing evidence. She next argues that the juvenile court failed to apply the requisite "more stringent standard," making "no mention of applying" a higher standard and merely stating that the children shall be committed to the custody of the Department. Finally, Mother asserts, the Department failed to prove by either the preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing standard that it was necessary to remove Child 1 and Child 2 from her custody at disposition.
The Department counters by arguing that the juvenile court properly found Child 1 and Child 2 to be CINAs based on Mother bringing R—Child 1 and Child 3's...
To continue reading
Request your trial