In re H.P.

1

IN RE: H.P.

No. 1957-2022

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

August 2, 2023

UNREPORTED ^[**]

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF MARYLAND ^[*]

Circuit Court for Cecil County Case No. C-07-JV-20-000069

Graeff, Kehoe, Harrell, Glenn T., Jr., (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION

Harrell, J.

This appeal arises from a decision by the Circuit Court for Cecil County, sitting as the juvenile court, changing the permanency plan for H.P., a minor, from a concurrent plan of reunification and custody and guardianship with a relative, to a sole plan of custody and guardianship with her maternal great-uncle, N.O. ("Uncle"). Mr. P. ("Father") noted an appeal, presenting two questions for our review, which we have rephrased slightly, as follows:

I. Did the juvenile court err in changing H.P.'s permanency plan of reunification and custody and guardianship with a relative to a plan of custody and guardianship by her Uncle, where her Father was willing to care for her?

II. Did the juvenile court err in finding that the Cecil County Department of Social Services ("Department") had made reasonable efforts toward a plan of reunification with Father?

For the reasons that follow, we shall affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.

BACKGROUND

H.P was born in 2006. She lived with her parents, Ms. P. ("Mother") and Father until she was two years old. She resided thereafter with Mother until 2012, when Mother placed her in the care of Uncle. In 2014, Uncle filed for custody of H.P. in Pennsylvania, where he lived. Father opposed Uncle's petition in the Pennsylvania proceedings, seeking custody of H.P. In 2018, a Pennsylvania court awarded Father sole legal and physical custody of H.P. He brought her back to Maryland to live with him, his fiancee, and infant son.

After moving to Maryland to join with Father, H.P. began exhibiting behavioral issues, including bullying and violence at school, stealing a cell phone, leaving school grounds during school hours, inappropriate sexual behavior, and running away from home. Father contacted the Department on several occasions regarding entering a voluntary placement agreement for H.P.^[1]

In March of 2020, H.P. ran away from Father's home. Father tracked her down and brought her to Sheppard Pratt hospital for admission. At Sheppard Pratt, H.P. was recommended for a diagnostic placement and a higher level of care, based on her behaviors and mental health. When H.P. was ready for discharge from Sheppard Pratt, Father refused to take her home, due his concerns for her safety and the safety of his two-year-old son at home.

As a result, H.P. was sheltered with the Department on 2 June 2020 and placed at Arrow Diagnostic Center. Following the completion of the program at Arrow Diagnostic Center, she was placed at Mary's Mount Manor Therapeutic Group Home, where she received individual and group therapy, psychiatric services, and medication management.

On 6 October 2020, H.P. was adjudicated a Child in Need of Assistance ("CINA")^[2] and committed to the temporary custody of the Department. The court ordered visitation between H.P. and her parents and relatives to be scheduled in accordance with customary Department policies and procedures. The court ordered further that Father and Mother participate in professional parenting, psychological, and substance abuse evaluations.

On 6 December 2020, H.P. ran away from Mary's Mount Manor. She was recovered on 21 December 2020 at Mother's home in Pittsburgh. She was returned to Maryland and admitted to the Diagnostic Program at the Woodbourne Center. At the permanency plan review hearing on 16 February 2021, H.P.'s counsel reported that H.P. was doing well at Woodbourne and attending school, and that she wished to be reunited with Mother in Pennsylvania. Mother was scheduled for a psychological evaluation and the Department was in the process of performing a home assessment of Mother's residence in Pennsylvania.

On 19 April 2021, H.P. left Woodbourne with a group of friends and did not return. The Department filed a report with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, but Father was not notified of H.P.'s disappearance for two weeks. On 9 July 2021, the Department was notified that law enforcement had located H.P. at her Grandmother's home in Pittsburgh. H.P. was transported to Maryland in August and placed at the Children's Home, a secure facility.

At a status hearing on 17 August 2021, the Department reported that H.P. was speaking often with Grandmother, but that she was not speaking to her parents. The Department had begun the process of evaluating Grandmother's home as a placement for H.P. The court ordered that H.P. remain in the custody of the Department and ordered supervised weekly visitation between H.P. and her parents.

At the status hearing on 2 November 2021, the Department reported that H.P. continued to do well at the Children's Home, where she was receiving one-on-one services to dissuade her from running away. H.P. did not want contact with Father. Mother had minimal engagement with her. H.P. desired to be reunited with Grandmother. Mother's counsel reported that Mother had not been in contact with her or the Department for a period of time.

H.P. continued to do well meeting goals and engaging in program services at the Children's Home. As a result of H.P.'s progress, she transitioned to Group Home placement on 3 December 2021, where she continued to attend educational services and receive one-on-one services. On 18 December 2021, H.P. ran away from the Group Home. H.P. contacted the Department on 7 January 2022 and requested to return to Maryland. The Department coordinated transportation for H.P. to Maryland and she was placed in a foster home in Cecil County.

The court conducted a permanency plan review hearing on 25 January 2022. H.P. expressed her desire to live with Grandmother and Uncle. Grandmother had not been approved as a resource, and she was required to move from the home in order for Uncle to obtain approval. H.P. was also pregnant and had reported being sexually assaulted during her time away from her placement.

Father expressed concerns about Uncle as a resource for H.P., arguing that she had developed behavioral issues, including running away and inappropriate sexual behavior, while she had been in his care. Father requested that the court remove the orders that he complete a substance abuse assessment and psychological evaluation, arguing that there were no allegations that Father had substance abuse or psychological issues to warrant an assessment for such services. Father also indicated that he had completed a parenting class in connection with the custody matter in Pennsylvania, and he intended to see whether that class fulfilled the parenting assessment requested by the Department.

The Department agreed that Father did not need to complete a substance abuse assessment, but argued that the parenting and psychological assessments were warranted to determine what type of services and family counseling could be undertaken to achieve reunification, in light of the conflict that remained in H.P.'s relationship with Father. The court approved the Department's request, ordering Father to participate in family therapy. The court continued H.P.'s concurrent permanency plan of reunification and custody and guardianship by a relative, and found that the Department had made reasonable efforts to achieve those plans.

On 14 January 2022, H.P. reported experiencing severe abdominal cramping. Her foster care provider took her to the emergency department of a local hospital. After multiple medical appointments and testing, H.P. was diagnosed with a possible ectopic pregnancy, and advised that it was a potentially life-threatening condition that cannot result in a healthy pregnancy or viable birth. H.P. declined the recommended treatment of methotrexate injection for pregnancy termination. She was instructed to return for further evaluation on 30 January 2022. H.P. began a new long-term foster placement on 28 January 2022.

Father and H.P.'s foster parent accompanied her to her medical appointment on 30 January 2022. H.P. was recommended again to receive methotrexate injection, which she and Father refused. She left the hospital against medical advice, electing to obtain a second opinion. The medical provider Father contacted for a second opinion refused the appointment and instructed H.P. to return to the emergency department for emergency treatment.

H.P. returned to the emergency department with Father and her foster parent on 1 February 2022 and received the first of two methotrexate injections. Father brought H.P. to the appointment to receive the second injection on 4 February 2022, although he failed to advise the foster parent or the Department of H.P.'s location that day, and he was unresponsive to the foster parent's attempts to contact him. Father returned H.P. to her foster home that evening. She was scheduled for a follow-up appointment and bloodwork during the week of 14 February 2022. She ran away from her placement on 12 February 2022 and did not attend her follow-up appointment.

On 2 March 2022, Uncle notified the Department that H.P. was at his home in Pittsburgh. The caseworker for the Department advised Uncle to have H.P. medically evaluated as soon as possible. He agreed to do so. That evening, H.P. began experiencing abdominal pain. Uncle took her to the hospital. H.P. was diagnosed with a ruptured ectopic pregnancy that required emergency surgery to remove her right fallopian tube. She recovered and was discharged a few days later. The Department allowed her to recover from surgery at Uncle's home as a family visit.

On 8 March 2022, Father requested an...