In re C.W.

1

IN RE: C.W.

No. 1993-2022

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

July 31, 2023

UNREPORTED ^[*]

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF MARYLAND ^[*]

Circuit Court for Prince George's County Case No. CINA-22-0014

Graeff, Berger, Eyler, James R. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION

Graeff, J.

After a permanency planning hearing in January 2023, the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, sitting as a juvenile court, found that C.W. was no longer a child in need of assistance ("CINA"),^[1] and she could safely be returned to her biological mother, C.M. ("Mother"), appellant. On January 10, 2023, the court issued an order terminating jurisdiction over C.W. and closing the CINA proceeding. Mother noted a timely appeal of the court's order.

On appeal, Mother presents the following question for this Court's review, which we have rephrased slightly, as follows:

Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion when it terminated jurisdiction over C.W., considering the Department had not yet provided all court-ordered services to the family necessary to ensure C.W.'s ongoing health, safety, and general welfare?

The Prince George's County Department of Social Services (the "Department"), appellee, included in its brief a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that, because the circuit court's order was a favorable ruling for Mother, she has no right to appeal. For the reasons set forth below, we shall grant the Department's motion and dismiss the appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

C.W was born in June 2005. On January 24, 2022, when C.W. was 16 years old, the Department filed in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County a CINA petition (the "Petition") alleging that C.W. was a CINA because her parents were "unable to provide the child [C.W.] with proper care and attention." The Petition alleged that the Department had received a report that C.W. was staying at the home of her adult sister, I.M., because Mother had kicked C.W. out of her home. C.W. reported that she left the home because Mother was being "aggressive," she used drugs, and she was neglecting C.W. The Department met with C.W., who said that she did not want to return home.

That same day, January 24, 2022, a magistrate held a shelter care hearing. Mother did not agree with all the allegations in the Petition, but she did not object to continued shelter care if that was what C.W. wanted.

The magistrate ordered shelter care and placed C.W. in the temporary custody of the Department, pending adjudication proceedings.^[2] The magistrate recommended that, pending adjudication proceedings, C.W. and Mother have liberal supervised visitation.

On December 13, 2022, the court adopted the magistrate's recommendations and granted the Department a temporary limited guardianship for purposes of: (1) "routine therapeutic, medical, dental, and vision decision-making" on behalf of C.W. "if Mother is unavailable;" (2) "educational decision-making" on C.W.'s behalf; and (3) obtaining a birth certificate and Social Security card for C.W.

On February 22, 2022, a magistrate began the adjudication hearing. The magistrate heard argument regarding continued shelter care. C.W. sought continued shelter care, and Mother also did not object to continued shelter care. The magistrate found that continued shelter care was necessary, and pending continued adjudication proceedings, C.W. needed to remain in the temporary custody of the Department.

On March 7, 2022, the court adopted the magistrate's findings and recommendations. It ordered continued shelter care and placed C.W. in the temporary custody of the Department, pending continued adjudication proceedings.

On April 12, 2022, C.W. and Mother filed a joint motion requesting that the court place C.W. in Mother's home and rescind the shelter care order. The motion alleged that C.W. had been in a variety of placements and was being placed in a group home. Since the shelter care hearing in January 2022, C.W. and Mother had phone contact and conversations, which allowed them to work on their relationship, and C.W. wanted to live with Mother. Mother agreed with C.W and wanted "to have her daughter come home in an expeditious manner." The Department disagreed and objected to placing C.W. in Mother's custody.

On May 2, 2022, the court held a hearing on the joint motion. At that point, Mother and C.W. withdrew the request that the court place C.W. in Mother's home. They did request, however, unsupervised visitation between C.W. and Mother.

On May 11, 2022, the court issued an order continuing shelter care and placing C.W. in the temporary custody of the Department, pending continued adjudication proceedings.

It provided that C.W. was "allowed liberal, unsupervised, day visits with her Mother, as arranged by [the Department] or its designee."

On June 22, 2022, the court resumed the adjudication hearing. The court, "pursuant to the parties' agreement," sustained the allegations in the Petition. The court then began the disposition hearing. The Department submitted its February 11, 2022 report, which noted, among other things, that the Department interviewed C.W. and family, explored the family's extensive history with Child Protective Services ("CPS"), and tried to work with Mother for a home health assessment and return home, but it was not successful due to Mother's lack of cooperation. The report also stated that Mother and the family had a "long and complex" history with CPS, with 15 closed investigations of Mother and four closed service cases. The report set forth the Department's recommendations, which were that:

1. C.W. "remain in the care and custody of [the Department] and be determined a [CINA]."

2. Mother be ordered "to complete a substance abuse assessment and to follow any and all treatment determined necessary."

3. Mother be ordered "to participate in individual counseling and follow any and all recommendations by the service with completion."

4. C.W. be ordered "to obtain a mental health evaluation and follow any and all recommendations by the service with completion."

5. C.W. be ordered "to participate in individual counseling to address childhood trauma and follow any and all recommendations by the service with completion."

6. Both C.W. and Mother be ordered "to participate in family counseling and follow any and all recommendations by the service with completion."

After hearing argument from counsel, the court adopted all of the Department's recommendations (except for the second recommendation, i.e., that Mother complete a substance abuse assessment). It found that C.W. was a CINA.

On July 13, 2022, the court held a permanency planning hearing. The Department recommended a permanency plan of reunification with Mother. With respect to the Department's efforts to maintain C.W. in an appropriate temporary placement, counsel for the Department stated that "[C.W.] has been very challenging, and . . . difficult to place. She's typically noncompliant." At that time, C.W. was placed at a hotel in Lanham, Maryland. Counsel for C.W. requested that the court order: (1) a "resource with extracurricular activities," because C.W. was interested in esthetician training and the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (JROTC); (2) assistance "obtaining [C.W.'s] learner's permit and driver's education," because C.W. was 17 years old; and (3) continued individual therapy services. Counsel argued that, "even if the plan is reunification, we still want to make sure that . . . they're working on those pieces and living a life, even while they're in care, as though they were under a parent." Counsel asserted that it was "not uncommon, even with reunification" as a goal, to help with a learner's permit, driver's education, or therapeutic needs.

The Department did not object to providing assistance regarding C.W.'s learner's permit and driver's education. C.W. was studying for her permit, and when she was ready to take the test, the Department would "get that going."

Counsel for Mother requested that the court adopt the Department's recommended permanency plan of reunification because Mother was "hoping that that [would] be possible in the future." Counsel did not request any additional services for Mother at that time.

On August 8, 2022, the court issued an order finding that C.W. continued to be a CINA and adopting a permanency plan of reunification with Mother, which was projected to be achieved by December 2022. The court also ordered, among other things, that the Department obtain C.W.'s birth certificate, provide a copy to the court, and "[a]ssist with learner's permit and driver's education for [C.W.]"

On January 3, 2023, the court held another permanency planning hearing. The Department's report, dated November 23, 2022, which was admitted into evidence, stated that C.W. had several placement changes. On September 1, 2022, C.W. was removed from the hotel in Lanham, and she continued to refuse placement efforts. She stayed at friends' houses, and then was placed in a treatment foster home, but she left that placement.

At the time of the report, C.W. was living with Mother and "doing fine in [Mother's] home." The Department recommended that the court close the case, noting:

[C.W.] continues to reside with her mother and is not engaged in any court ordered services. She has repeatedly rebuffed the Department's efforts to identify a suitable foster placement for her and has not participated in therapeutic services. Additionally, [Mother] has made it clear that she does not intend to cooperate with the Department, nor engage in any court ordered services. It appears that [Mother] is able to meet all of [C.W.'s] needs and there is no need for the Department to continue to be involved with this family.

...