ABUSE
CHILD WITNESSES
Reece v. State, 103 A.3d 1076 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2014). Trial court did not deny defendant due process in prosecution for child sex offenses by denying his request for pretrial taint hearing on reliability of victim’s testimony. Defendant was permitted to present evidence at trial that victim’s memory had been tainted by interviewers. Trial court was not required to question child victim about forensic evaluation at a hospital before determining that victim’s statements during later forensic evaluation had particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.
INVESTIGATIONS
David N. v. St. Mary’s County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 16 A.3d 991 (Md. Ct. App. 2011). A Maryland child welfare agency had a statutory duty to investigate a report of suspected abuse of a four-year-old girl alleged to have occurred in Maryland, even though the girl was a Virginia resident. Maryland’s child abuse and neglect reporting and investigation statutes can be read to give child welfare and law enforcement agencies power to investigate reports of suspected abuse or neglect occurring in Maryland involving a nonresident child. This interpretation furthers the legislature’s goal of protecting all children from abuse and neglect.
REGISTRIES
Dep’t of Human Res. v. Hayward, 45 A.3d 224 (Md. 2012). School staff, who had been investigated for child abuse resulting in an unsubstantiated finding, had a right to appeal that decision. Though agency regulations purported to allow appeal only for individuals found responsible for child abuse, this conflicted with the statute and was unjust. Petitioners should be able to challenge their effective classification as persons suspected of child abuse on the central registry given the potential collateral consequences.
SEARCHES
Walker v. State, 47 A.3d 590(Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2012). Trial court did not err in denying motion to suppress evidence where elementary school principal consented to search of assistant teacher’s desk in criminal child abuse case. Assistant teacher did not enjoy an expectation of privacy regarding the desk, given the drawer labels indicated desk contained items that might be used communally.
SEXUAL ABUSE
Walker v. State, 69 A.3d 1066 (Md. 2013). Teacher’s assistant was properly convicted of child sexual exploitation where he wrote passionate notes to eight-year-old child over several months. Though contents of the letters extended only to hugging, kissing, and hand holding, trial judge could have fairly concluded that they were written for the benefit of defendant’s sexual fantasies, and exploitation statute did not require actual physical contact.
ADOPTION
CONSENT
In re Sean M., 42 A.3d 722 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2012). In stepparent adoption case, trial court properly found father’s failure to respond to show cause order within 30-day time frame resulted in an irrevocable consent and father’s due process rights were not violated. Statutory scheme provides adequate notice of the risks of not responding in time and father offered no excuse that would form an equitable basis for ignoring the statute because he could have simply signed the attached objection and returned it by mail.
INTERVENTION
In re Malichi W., 57 A.3d 1077 (Md. Ct. App. 2012). Trial court correctly determined that child’s cousin lacked standing to intervene in case after parental rights were terminated. No statute or court rule permitted intervention or other mechanism for adding a noncustodial party other than the person designated by the agency. In this case, mother and agency had designated foster parent.
CHILDREN’S RIGHTS
SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS
In re Ryan W., 56 A.3d 250 (Md. 2012). Trial court improperly created a trust for youth’s Social Security death benefits because federal and state statutes allowed a custodian to act as the representative payee of a minor’s benefits and apply them to their care and child welfare agency was his custodian. Youth was correct however that notice to department of the benefits action, rather than youth or his legal representative, was inadequate as notice to the youth or his attorney would be a minimal added burden for the state and would tend to help reduce possibility of erroneous deprivation of foster children’s property interests.
CUSTODY
SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS
Simbaina v. Bunay, 109 A.3d 191 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015). Trial court erred in failing to address Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) predicate findings when requested by mother in divorce and custody proceedings. State and federal law broadly define ‘juvenile court’ and lack any specific case requirement that predicate findings be made. FULL SUMMARY
DELINQUENCY
CRIMINAL RECORDS
In re Nancy H., 14 A.3d 19 (Md. Ct. App. 2011). Juvenile who pled guilty in trial court to second degree assault and was transferred to juvenile court for disposition was entitled to have criminal record expunged; statute authorizing expungement of criminal records when case involving a child is transferred to juvenile court applies to juveniles who are waived after a plea is entered but before disposition.
PROBATION CONDITIONS
In re Tyrell A., 112 A.3d 468 (Md. 2015). Juvenile who was adjudicated delinquent for involvement in school fight was placed on probation and required as a condition of probation to pay restitution for medical expenses incurred by other student. Student, who fought willingly with juvenile, was not victim entitled to restitution. Trial court cannot order restitution in favor of person who was voluntary participant in delinquent act that caused his injuries.
REPRESENTATION
In re Chaden M., 30 A.3d 935 (Md. 2011). Mother received ineffective assistance of counsel where her attorney did not file an objection to a petition to terminate parental rights because she believed her notice of appearance served as an objection because the parent was disabled. Even if a local policy to that effect had existed, it would have been in conflict with the statute requiring an objection within 30 days.
RESTITUTION
In re A.B., 2016 WL 6393519 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.). Fifteen-year-old juvenile admitted involvement in second-degree assault, and court ordered restitution. Juvenile appealed order requiring him to pay $6,491, which was one-third of losses suffered by victim. Order was warranted, despite juvenile’s claim he lacked ability to pay because he was unemployed, because he had five and one-half years to fulfill obligation.
PROBATION CONDITIONS
In re Tavon T., 101 A.3d 442 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2014). In denying master’s recommendation that juvenile’s case be terminated, no rule or statute prohibited the juvenile court from giving a specific instruction to the circuit court judge to make mental health treatment a condition of juvenile’s supervision, even though no statute or rule expressly permitted such recommendation. Court’s suggestion was not reduced to judgment until after the later court hearing.
DEPENDENCY
AGGRAVATED CIRCUMSTANCES
In re Joy D., 84 A.3d 223 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.). Trial court properly found reasonable efforts were not required in case because mother had rights to prior children involuntarily terminated without considering whether it was in the child’s best interests. Statute indicated that upon finding aggravated circumstances, courts ‘shall’ make the finding and the state legislative history confirmed it was intended to be mandatory.
APPEALS
Dep’t of Human Res. v. Cosby, 24 A.3d 199 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2011). Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) did not err in dismissing appeal of mother’s neglect indication where the trial court had already adjudicated her son because both cases involved the same party, the same issues, and there had been a fair opportunity to be heard in the first case; though statute was silent on whether collateral estoppel was available in OAH proceedings, the legislative history did not suggest an intent to preclude it.
ANOTHER PLANNED PERMANENT LIVING ARRANGEMENT
In re Andre J., 2015 WL 3452476 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.). In changing permanency plan for 19-year-old intellectually disabled youth from reunification with his mother to another planned permanent living arrangement (APPLA), court could consider youth’s preference not to move to jurisdiction where mother lived. Although youth had cognitive and verbal deficits, court-appointed special advocate stated he could express his emotions and thoughts, and case history revealed a consistent, longstanding pattern of distress during and after unsupervised visits with mother.
EVIDENCE
In re J.J., 2016 WL 7435807 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.). Mother and father appealed adjudication of their children as dependent. While mother was incarcerated, nine-year-old child reported father sexually abused her. As matter of first impression, statute governing admission of out-of-court statements by child victim of abuse does not require court to first conduct preliminary competency determination. Court noted different concerns between competency of child witness to testify and admissibility of prior out-of-court statement by abused child.
GROUNDS
In re Priscilla B., 78 A.3d 500 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2013). Trial court properly found child neglected considering the cleanliness and need for repair of the house, failure to get treatment for a spider bite, parents’ prior substance abuse, domestic violence, and prior removals. While any of the issues alone might not have justified a dependency adjudication given their level of severity to proximity in time, the total pattern showed the child was unsafe.
MEDICALLY FRAGILE MINOR
In re Dustin R., 2015 WL 9265345 (Md.). Medically fragile child whose biological parents’ rights had been terminated, and who needed life-sustaining care, sought continuation of services after he turned 21 years old. Juvenile court had jurisdiction and statutory authority to order social services agency to develop and approve written plan of clinically appropriate services in least-restrictive setting that ensured medically fragile child would continue to receive services he was then receiving.
PERMANENCY GOAL
In re Ashley S., 66 A.3d 1022 (Md. 2013). In case where earlier dependency matter was dismissed on appeal but children were removed on new facts, trial court properly found goal change to adoption was warranted. Fact that mother failed to visit during second custodial period and testimony of her children that they favored adoption because they did not believe mother was getting the mental health treatment she needed showed their relationship was harmed more by her erratic behavior than their time in care. FULL SUMMARY
REASONABLE EFFORTS
In re Shirley B., 18 A.3d 40 (Md. 2011). Child welfare agency’s efforts to reunify mother with children were reasonable even though some services agency referred mother to were not available due to funding constraints. Agency made extensive efforts to support reunification and was not responsible for services that were withheld from mother due to financial reasons outside its control.
REGISTRIES
McClanahan v. Washington County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 2015 WL 9300639 (Md.). Finding that mother caused mental injury to daughter and could be placed on central registry was based on taking child to multiple health care providers after child complained father hurt her and child exhibited vaginal redness. Parent’s action must be examined in context to determine whether there was intent to injure child. Even if mother intended to gain advantage in custody battle, inclusion on central registry was not permitted unless mother intended to harm child or acted in reckless disregard of child’s welfare.
TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS
APPEALS
In re L.B., 2016 WL 4570460 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.).
Mother lacked standing to appeal order challenging placement of her two children, which was determined during same proceeding in which mother’s parental rights were terminated. Termination of mother’s parental rights was affirmed on appeal, and therefore order was final and mother lost standing to appeal placement decision.
GROUNDS
In re K’Amora K., 97 A.3d 169 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2014). Trial court properly terminated mother’s parental rights based on exceptional circumstances due to mother’s refusal to provide adequate and proper medical treatment for infant’s human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) at birth, mother’s history of not providing a safe and stable environment for her other children, and her failure to cooperate with the agency to provide services and assess her parental fitness. Minor was born with a “high a HIV viral load” and mother refused a medical treatment despite doctor’s recommendations.
RELATIVE PLACEMENT
In re Cross H., 24 A.3d 747 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2011). Trial court properly rejected relative placement with grandmother in termination case based on an unfavorable home study report and bonding assessment; court could conclude that grandmother was not a viable long-term placement option given family’s assertion that she would be a temporary caregiver until the mother was capable given the mother’s longstanding inability to parent her children.
WITNESSES
In re Adrianna T., 56 A.3d 814 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2012). Trial court did not abuse discretion in permitting caseworker, who supervised grandmother’s foster home of child out of state, to testify by phone in termination trial. Mother was not prejudiced by the court’s inability to examine the demeanor of the witness since testimony was made by phone. Individual was a disinterested witness and testimony was corroborated by other evidence.