In re Adoption/Guardianship C.D.

IN RE: ADOPTION/GUARDIANSHIP OF C.D.

No. 1157

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2015

August 29, 2016

UNREPORTED

Meredith, Reed, Moylan, Charles E., Jr. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Moylan, J.

*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

This case arises from an order of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, sitting as a juvenile court, terminating the parental rights of H.C. ("Ms. C."), appellant, to her minor child, C.D., also an appellant, after determining that Ms. C. is an unfit parent and that termination of parental rights is in C.D.'s best interests. On appeal, Ms. C. and C.D. present two questions for our review, which we have consolidated and rephrased:¹

Did the juvenile court properly exercise its discretion in granting guardianship of C.D. to the Anne Arundel County Department of Social Services (the "Department"), after it determined that Ms. C. is unfit and it is in C.D.'s best interests to terminate Ms. C.'s parental rights?

For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

C.D. is the now sixteen-year-old² daughter of Ms. C. and Joseph D ("Mr. D.").³ The Department had been involved with Ms. C. and her ex-husband, Mr. D., on multiple occasions since 2000 when it began providing the family with continuing services following their relocation from Indiana.⁴ The Department's most recent involvement with the family began on October 17, 2011, when it received a report that C.D., then age eleven, and her two younger siblings, D.D., age ten, and T.D., age six, were living in a two bedroom trailer with Mr. D., his mother, and his step-father. Ms. C. was not living in the home at that time, having previously moved out, without the children, because Mr. D. was physically and emotionally abusive. The report alleged that the trailer was dirty and that the children went to school filthy, unkempt, inappropriately dressed for the weather, smelling strongly of animal urine, and that they frequently brought roaches to school with them.

On November 1, 2011, a Department worker went to the trailer to investigate the allegations, but was not allowed entry. The following day, the Department was contactedby the children's school after the children arrived at school with bugs on them. The assigned Department worker returned to the trailer with police. Upon investigation, the Department determined that the trailer was unsafe, unsanitary, and uninhabitable: there was junk, trash, and debris outside of the trailer; the inside of the trailer had holes in the floor that were covered with boards and rugs; there were rodents in the walls and the trailer was infested with roaches; and there was a noticeable stench from the twelve animals living in the trailer. The Department contacted Ms. C., who was living at a motel, and she acknowledged being aware of the living conditions in the trailer and agreed that the children should be removed; however, she was unwilling and unable to care for the children.

On November 2, 2011, the three children were removed from the home and were placed in shelter care with the Department. After a two-day adjudication hearing on November 18, 2011 and December 15, 2011, and a disposition hearing on December 19, 2011, the circuit court Master found C.D. and her two siblings to be children in need of assistance.⁵ After Ms. C. and Mr. D. objected to the Master's recommendations, an exceptions hearing was held on April 23, 2012. At the hearing, Ms. C. and Mr. D. withdrew the majority of their exceptions, the circuit court adjudicated the children CINA due toparental neglect, and the children were committed to the custody of the Department for out-of-home placement.

History of Department Involvement With C.D. and C.D.'s Foster Care Placements

In June of 2001, C.D. was placed in the custody of the Department and, on August 31, 2001, she and her older brother were adjudicated CINA. C.D. was returned to her parents' custody in February of 2002.

In September of 2004, the Department emergently removed C.D. and her siblings from the home. C.D. was again found to be a CINA and returned home under an order of protective supervision. From 2005-2007, C.D. lived with a maternal aunt.

In February of 2010, the Department determined that the trailer in which C.D.'s family was living was unsafe and moved them into a motel. The Department later learned that Mr. D. had returned to the trailer with the children.

By the time of C.D.'s removal in 2011, Ms. C. had been indicated for neglect of C.D. in 2002, 2004, and 2005. She was also indicated for physical abuse in January of 2003. Since 2000, the Department had provided the family assistance with family preservation services, in home support, community support, financial and transportation assistance, reunification services for the children's return from out-of-home placement, assistance with scheduling and keeping medical appointments, finding special educational service programs for the children, and monitoring the interaction and discipline between Ms. C. and the children.

From the time of her removal in November of 2011 through the date of the guardianship hearing, C.D. had been in four foster homes. C.D. has a history of self-injurious behavior, temper tantrums, forgetfulness, poor social skills, aggression, noncompliance at home, sleep difficulties, verbal abuse, and inappropriate sexual behavior. C.D. had two in-patient psychiatric hospitalizations in 2012 and was diagnosed with a depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. She was subsequently diagnosed with reactive adjustment disorder, a mood disorder, and attention deficit disorder. During the course of treatment, C.D. was prescribed Risperda and Limictal for her mood disorder, Vyvanse for her attention deficit disorder, and Zyprexa for alertness at school.

In 2012, after C.D. was discharged from her second hospitalization due to suicidal ideations and out-of-control and aggressive behavior, C.D. moved into a treatment foster home with the S. family, where she remained until July 1, 2014. In February of 2014, C.D.'s younger siblings, D.D. and T.D. were adopted.

While living with the S. family, in April of 2013, C.D. disclosed to her foster mother, Ms. S., that she had been sexually abused by her father, Mr. D. The Department investigated and determined that C.D. had suffered repeated sexual abuse and trauma by Mr. D. that began when she was in 5^th grade. The abuse started when C.D. was living with both parents at the motel and continued when she returned to the trailer with Mr. D. The Department indicated Mr. D. for sexual abuse of C.D. in June of 2013, and in July of 2014, Mr. D. was convicted of a 4^th degree sex offense and sentenced to one year of home detention and one year of supervised probation.

Ms. C.

Since leaving the trailer in 2011, Ms. C. had resided in a motel room, where she continued to reside at the time of the guardianship proceeding. Ms. C. worked at the motelreception desk in exchange for lodging. Ms. C. shared the motel room with her boyfriend, Mitch M., who is the twin brother of Mr. D.'s stepfather. While living in the trailer with Mr. D., his mother, and his stepfather, Ms. C. had engaged in a sexual relationship with Mr. D.'s stepfather.

Linda Meade, Ph.D., a licensed psychologist, performed a psychological evaluation of Ms. C. Dr. Meade diagnosed Ms. C. with an adjustment disorder with anxious mood, and a personality disorder not otherwise specified with paranoid and dependent traits. Dr. Meade found that Ms. C. has "excellent superficial social skills," but is "somewhat limited" in casual conversation. She displays "very little insight into her circumstances and the obstacles she faces with respect to becoming an adequate parent for her children." Ms. C. "takes very little responsibility for her difficulties and is unlikely to take much responsibility with respect to improving her situation." Overall, Ms. C. "seemed like a highly dependent person."

Dr. Meade further found that Ms. C. is "quite limited intellectually," and shows poor judgment and "restricted insight into her limitations." Ms. C.'s "coping skills remain at an adolescent level, e.g., running away from unpleasant situations," and she "is not sure how to function as an effective parent." Dr. Meade stated that Ms. C. "is certainly not in a position to provide the day-to-day care, structure, nurturing, and constructive discipline that children need to develop properly," and it "may also be beyond her ability to complete the tasks assigned to her to master adequate parenting skills and prepare her for resuming custody" of C.D. Moreover, Ms. C. "has evidenced tremendous difficulty following through on recommendations she has been given and does not seem amenable to acceptingresponsibility for her shortcomings as a parent." Based on her evaluation, Dr. Meade recommended that before Ms. C. could regain custody of C.D., she should "demonstrate to Child Welfare Services that she is committed to being an adequate parent, by following through on the recommendations she has been given to prepare [her]self for taking greater responsibility" for C.D.

As part of its reunification efforts, the Department had made multiple recommendations for Ms. C., many of which she refused. Although the Department recommended that Ms. C. obtain vocational rehabilitation services, Ms. C. refused those services because she liked her work. Ms. C. also repeatedly told the Department that she wanted to move out of the motel and obtain housing for her and C.D., indicating to the Department on different occasions that she would move out of the motel room after Mr. M. received inheritance money and/or disability payments, or when she received...