Preview:

REPORTED

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2321 SEPTEMBER TERM, 1999 _________________________________ __

IN RE ADOPTION/GUARDIANSHIP NO. T98314013 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY

_________________________________ __

Hollander, Kenney, Karwacki, Robert L. (Retired, Specially assigned) JJ. _________________________________ __

Opinion by Hollander, J. _________________________________ __

Filed: August 30, 2000

The

Baltimore

City

Department

of

Social

Services

(the

"Department"), appellee, filed a petition for guardianship with the right to consent to adoption or long-term care short of adoption (the "petition"), seeking to terminate the parental

rights of Donna W., appellant, as to her daughter, Jimetra D.1 After a hearing on October 26, 1999, at which the parties

proceeded by way of proffer, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City granted the petition. and poses one question for Appellant timely noted her appeal our consideration, which we have

rephrased slightly: Was the evidence legally sufficient to terminate the parental rights of the natural mother?[2]

By letter to the Clerk of Court, counsel for Jimetra has advised that she "concur'[s]" with the Department's position. In support of her argument as to insufficiency, appellant argues that the court erred in admitting "the entirety of the DSS `business record' . . .." Accordingly, the Department has included a second issue in its brief, as follows: When the Department's case record was offered into evidence as a business record, did opposing counsel's failure to identify and object to specific portions of the record containing inadmissible hearsay constitute a failure to properly preserve the issue for appellate (continued...)
2

1

For the reasons that follow, we shall affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND Jimetra was born in Baltimore on May 26, 1994, to appellant and Jimmy D. however. record Jimetra's father is not a party to this appeal, The or

Appellant also has an older daughter, India. not disclose India's date of birth or age,

does

whether Jimmy D. is her father. Several months before Jimetra's second birthday, on February 27, 1996, appellant's mother (the "Grandmother")3 went to

appellant's residence to visit and discovered that appellant had left Jimetra alone in the residence. Because the Grandmother

heard Jimetra crying but could not gain access into the home, she contacted a Baltimore City police officer, who made a forced entry. The incident of suspected neglect was reported to the

Department, and Jimetra was immediately placed in the care of her Grandmother, who had apparently cared for Jimetra

previously, when appellant was incarcerated.4

Moreover, in 1991,

2

(...continued) review?
3

Appellant's

mother

is

not

identified

by

name

in

the

record. Although appellant was incarcerated for six months, the offense is not identified in the record. -24

appellant

had

voluntarily

placed

India

in

the

care

of

the

Grandmother. On February 28, 1996, the Department filed a petition in the circuit court alleging that Jimetra was a "child in need of assistance" Vol., 1999 ("CINA"), Supp.), pursuant

Download In Re: Adoption No. T98314013.pdf

Maryland Law