Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 364 September Term, 2001

IN RE: ADOPTION/GUARDIANSHIP NOS. T00130003 AND T00130004 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY

Murphy, C.J., Salmon, Thieme, Raymond G., Jr. (Ret'd, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Thieme, J.

Filed: December 6, 2001

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 364 September Term, 2001

IN RE: ADOPTION/GUARDIANSHIP NOS. T00130003 AND T00130004 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY

Murphy, C.J., Salmon, Thieme, Raymond G., Jr. (Ret'd, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Thieme, J.

Filed: December 6, 2001

On May 15, 2000, the Baltimore City Department of Social Services (the Department) filed a Petition for Guardianship with the Right to Consent to Adoption or Long Term Care Short of Adoption for the minor children, Dontae and Latisha W. The

Petition, filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City Division for Juvenile Causes, requested that the children be placed with a relative. Carol W., the mother of the children, filed an Counsel for the deemed to have

objection to the Petition on May 30, 2000. children filed no objection and were thus

consented to the Petition. Despite the Department's intention to have the children placed with a relative, as of January 2001 the children were still in foster care. an extension of time Consequently, the children were granted for discovery, and the court ordered

evaluations be conducted by the Juvenile Court Medical Service Office prior to the settlement conference scheduled for February 2001. Based on purported changes in circumstances that occurred

after the Petition was served, the children further sought the opportunity to file an objection to the Petition after the deadline had passed. This request was denied. Consequently,

during the trial held on March 29, 2001, the children were not given the opportunity fully to present a case. Petition was granted and Carol W.'s The Department's rights were

parental

terminated. The children subsequently filed this appeal on April 24, 2001, to raise the following questions: I. Did the circuit court err in refusing to consider whether the children's changed circumstances warranted relief from the thirty-day response deadline to the show cause order? Did the circuit court abuse its discretion in failing to consider evidence in the Court Medical reports indicating the inappropriateness of the termination of parental rights of Carol W. and the significance of the sibling bond between Latisha and Dontae? Did the circuit court err in concluding that Latisha and Dontae's best interests called for the termination of Carol W.'s parental rights?

II.

III.

Facts Latisha W, now eleven years old, was born on December 1, 1989 to Carol W. Latisha's father died on September 4, 1989, Latisha lived with her mother and two

prior to her birth.

siblings, Tylita R. and Ashley M.,1 until April 1993 when Carol W. was hospitalized after an attempted suicide. At that time

Latisha went to live with Ashley M. and her father, Russell M. The Department provided a great deal of supportive services

Currently, Ashley M. resides with her father, and Tylita R. resides with her maternal grandmother. The Department of Social Services did not seek to terminate Carol W.'s parental rights as to these two children. -2-

1

to Carol W. and her family.

Such measures included the purchase

of food and clothing, in-home aide, and the location of an apartment with the initial payment of rent and the

identification of potential employment.

The Department also Carol W. ,

placed Carol W. in a drug treatment program.

however, did not follow through to obtain employment and failed to pay rent, which led to her eviction. She also continued to

abuse drugs and was dismissed from the drug treatment course because of her failure to keep several appointments. On December 14, 1993, was pursuant to be to a petitions Child in by Need the of

Department,

Latisha

found

Assistance (CINA) and was formally placed in the custody of Russell M. and his wife. Dontae W., now five years old, was born on October 17, 1995, to Carol W. His father was never identified.2 On have

December 19, 1996, the Department filed a petition to Dontae placed into shelter care. been living to alternately the December between 14

Additionally, as Latisha had Russell the M. and Carol W., a

contrary

order,

Department

filed

Petition for Review as to Latisha's disposition. these petitions, the Department charged that

In making W. was

Carol

Two men were identified as the possible father, but both were ruled out as candidates after paternity tests were conducted. -3-

2

providing inadequate care for the children3 and further alleged that on one occasion she had struck Latisha with a belt. Carol

W. was arrested and incarcerated until March 29, 1997 as a result of the abuse. The children were placed in the foster

care of one Ms. H. while determinations as to their continued living situations were pending. On May 7, 1997, the court found Dontae to be a CINA and granted a general order of commitment to the Department. The

court also rescinded the Order of Custody and Guardianship to Russell M. and his wife as to Latisha and granted a general order of commitment to the Department. At this time, Carol W.

also informed the court that she had a hearing scheduled because of a violation of her probation and expected to have an extended incarceration. Consequently, the children remained in the care

of Ms. H., though a stipulation was made that the children were to have regular visitation with their mother. The children have remained in occasional contact with Carol W. despite the fact that she had been incarcerated until January 2, 2001. Though the children were able to visit their mother

three times a year, their current caseworker was present for one

A police officer investigating a report of abuse found Carol W.'s home to be unsanitary and unsafe for the children. The officer indicated that the home was infested with rats, floorboards were loose, trash was spread throughout and the bathroom was unclean. The Department also received reports that the children, on at least one occasion, had been left without proper supervision. -4-

3

visit in 1999 and noted that Latisha did not interact well with Carol W. and Dontae did not appear to recognize her. Carol W. has made efforts to rehabilitate herself while incarcerated. She has taken various courses on addiction

education, life skills and parenting, conflict resolution and even received her high school diploma. After her release, on

January 5, 2001, she went to the Department and signed a service agreement to give her a second chance at raising her children. In doing so, she agreed to obtain housing, provide proof of employment and enroll in drug treatment. Carol W. visited the children once following her release. During that visit, Dontae did not recognize Carol W. and instead identified Ms. H. as his mother. Another visit was scheduled by

the caseworker for February, but Carol W. did not appear, nor did she make any efforts to reschedule the appointment. When

the caseworker sought to contact Carol W., it was discovered that the phone had been disconnected. At the time of the trial on March 29 2001, Carol W. had not begun to comply with any of the provisions of the service agreement, nor did she have further contact with the children. This failure was emotionally damaging to Latisha. On February 21, 2001, at the request of the children's counsel, the court ordered that Carol W. and the children attend

-5-

a bonding assessment. 2001.

The assessment was scheduled for March 13

Notice was sent to Carol W. by her counsel, but she did The assessment therefore and Court a report was

not attend or respond in any manner. evaluated the children by

individually, the Juvenile

subsequently

prepared

Medical

Office

(Medical Office). The Medical Office concluded that Latisha had a very clear understanding of her situation. She expressed a desire to live

with her mother, whom she loves, but only if Carol W. could be responsible. When asked what she would wish to do until her

mother reaches such a point, Latisha responded that she would like to live with Russell M., whom she considers her stepfather. Though she stated that she loves Ms. H., she explained that she had more fun with Russell M. The examiner indicated that Latisha and Dontae are very closely bonded. Latisha stated that she takes care of Dontae

including making sure he brushes his teeth, making sure he is fine while in school, and walking him home after school. examiner expressed concern, as Latisha stated The

corporal

punishment is used on Dontae. The report further noted that Latisha is well adjusted, though she may benefit from increased social interactions. The

Medical Office also recommended that Latisha remain with Ms. H.

-6-

in long term care. the termination

The report concluded by recommending against Carol W.'s parental rights, as it was

of

suggested that such an action could be emotionally damaging to Latisha, who has not yet resolved the fact that she may never be able to return to her mother's care. The assessment of Dontae disclosed that he is well adjusted and extremely bonded to his foster mother, Ms. H., his sister Latisha, and his foster sisters. Despite previous contact with

Carol W., Dontae does not seem to know who she is and only considers Ms. H. to be his mother. The report noted that Ms. H. The only area of concern

has shown interest in adopting Dontae.

that was presented was the apparent corporal punishment of Dontae by Ms. H. and his older foster siblings. The Medical

Office nonetheless recommended that Dontae remain in the home of Ms. H. with his sister and that counseling be sought to find alternatives for corporal punishment. On June 10, 1998, when the permanency plan for Dontae and Latisha was first established, the Department sought to have the children placed with a relative, and the circuit court ordered the Department to investigate relative resources for the

children.

On July 14, 2000, a court order incorporated an

agreement between all the parties to transition the children to the home of a maternal aunt for an eventual adoption. This

-7-

agreement

was

conditioned

on

a

Department

background

investigation of the aunt.

By January 24, 2001, however, the This

children had still not been placed with a relative. failure also led to a contested CINA proceeding.

The court decided to consolidate the CINA and parental termination proceedings and set a trial date for March 29, 2001. On that date, however, the court held a trial on the termination proceedings but chose not to proceed on the CINA review. The

CINA review was later canceled, as it was not necessary to decide the issue after Carol W.'s parental rights were

terminated.

Carol W. had ceased communicating with her attorney

since her release from prison in January and did not attend the trial although her attorney had sent her written notice of the date. At trial, the court did not allow the children to present a complete case. Despite this deficiency, the court concluded

that Latisha and Dontae's needs were being met and their safety was being provided for in the foster home. concluded children. that Carol W. could not The court further care for the

properly

Though a bond did exist between Latisha and her

biological mother, the court concluded that it was not a true mother/child bond. Indeed the court pointed out that Carol W. Instead

has shown little interest in contacting her children.

-8-

the court noted that the children have adapted reasonably well to their foster home. Thus, the court decided it was in the

best interest of the children to terminate Carol W.'s parental rights. The court further noted that counsel for the children

did not file a timely objection, and thus the consent of the children was assumed. The children subsequently filed this appeal. Discussion I. Relief from the Deadline Maryland Rule 9-107(b)(1) requires that a notice of

objection to a petition for adoption or guardianship be filed within thirty days after the show cause order is served. Code Md.

(1984, 1999 Repl. Vol.),

Download In Re: Adoption T00130003.pdf

Maryland Law