Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 0688 September Term, 2011

IN RE: MALICHI W.

Woodward, Zarnoch, Raker, Irma S. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Zarnoch, J.

Filed: December 20, 2012

In this case, we must determine whether a non-parental, non-custodial relative of a child can intervene in the minor's adoption proceeding commenced after the termination of parental rights ("TPR"). Appellant, Kris Golden ("Golden"), who sought intervention in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, is the maternal cousin of Malichi W. ("Malichi"), who is now eight-years old. The parental rights of Malichi's biological parents were terminated on August 10, 2010. Yolanda W. ("Ms. W.") filed a petition to adopt Malichi on March 24, 2011, which was granted on June 1, 2011. Golden filed two motions, one on April 8 and one on May 31, both entitled "Motion to Intervene and Appeal," in the adoption proceedings. The circuit court, sitting as a juvenile court, denied both motions. Because we find that no law or rule authorizes Golden to intervene in an adoption proceeding after termination of parental rights, we affirm the court's decision. FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Malichi was born on May 3, 2004 in Baltimore City. The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of Malichi's biological parents on August 10, 2010. Malichi's biological mother consented to the termination on the condition that Malichi be adopted by Ms. W., who was Malichi's pre-adoptive foster mother, and who had custody of the child since June 6, 2006.1 Malichi's biological father did not object, and thus he consented by operation of law. On March 9, 2011, the Baltimore City Department of Social Services (the

"Department"), the child's appointed guardian, consented to Malichi's adoption by Ms. W.

Malichi had previously been determined to be a child in need of assistance (CINA) although the record is unclear regarding the date of the court's order. Malichi's status as a CINA was terminated when adoption was ordered.

1

Ms. W. then petitioned the court to adopt Malichi on March 24, 2011. The following day, the court appointed an attorney to represent Malichi. On April 8, Golden filed a motion in Malichi's adoption proceedings captioned "Motion to Intervene and Appeal." She wanted to be considered as an adoptive parent for Malichi. The juvenile court denied the motion on April 12, in a one-line order, stating that it lacked good cause. Golden did not appeal this decision. On May 31, 2011, Golden filed a second motion with the same caption as her first.2 On June 1, 2011, the juvenile court granted Ms. W's petition for adoption of Malichi. The court then denied Golden's motion on June 10, 2011 in a brief order, finding that there was a lack of good cause and that the issue was moot because "the child was adopted on 6/1/11." Golden filed this appeal. QUESTION PRESENTED We review the following question:3 Did the court legally err in denying Golden's second motion to intervene?4

Golden was not entitled to a hearing on her motions under Md. R. 2-311 because she did not request one. We have formulated this question from a review of Golden's brief. Under "Issues Presented," Golden states, in part, "Kris Golden was not afforded proper consideration in her attempt to adopt Malichi W. so that he could remain with his biological family." Because Golden was not a proper party to the adoption proceeding, she can only appeal the denial of her motion to intervene. The denial of a motion to intervene is an appealable final order. Hiyab, Inc. v. Ocean Petroleum, LLC, 183 Md. App. 1, 9 (2008). Golden did not appeal the denial of her first motion and ordinarily, she would not be permitted to file the same motion more than 30 days after the denial of her first motion. Md. Rule 2-535. However, appellee Department has not raised an objection. In addition, the juvenile court entertained the second motion by finding lack of good cause. Thus, we will address whether Golden had a right to intervene. Because we affirm the circuit court's (continued...)
2
4 3

2

For the following reasons, we find no error and affirm the circuit court's denial of Golden's motion to intervene. DISCUSSION In this case, the key issue is whether a non-parental, non-custodial relative of a child is authorized to intervene in an adoption proceeding after termination of parental rights. Because this is a purely legal issue involving interpretation of the Maryland Code and the Maryland Rules of Procedure, we review the juvenile court's decision under a de novo standard.5 Davis v. Slater, 383 Md. 599, 604 (2004). Golden argues that the juvenile court erred in denying her motion to intervene and appeal because she was Malichi's maternal cousin, and she had an interest in adopting him. She contends that the court should have considered her as a potential adoptive parent because she is a biological family member. The Department responds that the juvenile court properly denied Golden's motion because no statute or rule affords a person in Golden's situation either a right or an opportunity to intervene in an adoption proceeding after parental rights have been terminated.

(...continued) decision that she could not intervene, we need not decide the issue of mootness. This review is different than our consideration of a circuit court's denial of a motion to intervene under Md. Rule 2-214. There, we employ an abuse of discretion standard when the circuit court denies the motion as untimely or when permissive intervention is rejected. See Md. Capital Park &Planning Comm'n. v. Town of Washington Grove, Md., 408 Md. 37, 65 n.20 (2009). Denials of a motion to intervene as a right are reviewed under a de novo standard. Id.
3
5

4

We agree with the Department. In reaching this conclusion, we review the Maryland Code provisions and Maryland Rules of Procedure that could potentially relate to this case: Title 5, Subtitle 3 of the Family Law Article ("FL") of the Md. Code (1984, 2006 Repl. Vol.); Title 9 of the Maryland Rules; Md. Rule 2-214; and Title 11 of the Maryland Rules, particularly with respect to its interaction with Title 3, Subtitle 8 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article ("CJP") of the Md. Code (1973, 2006 Repl. Vol.). I. Family Law Article, Title 5, Subtitle 3 Title 5, Subtitle 3 of the FL Article which governs adoptions, and more specifically Part IV, which applies to adoptions after termination of parental rights, makes no mention of a right to intervene in an adoption proceeding. See FL

Download 0688s11.pdf

Maryland Law