In re J.D.

IN RE J.D.

No. 1363-2020

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

August 12, 2021

Circuit Court for Baltimore City Petition No. 819357002

Graeff, Reed, Gould, JJ.

OPINION ^[*]

GRAEFF, J.

This case arises from an order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, sitting as a juvenile court, adjudicating J.D. as a child in need of assistance ("CINA") and providing that Father, appellant, have supervised visitation.^[1] Father challenges this order, presenting the following questions for this Court's review, which we have rephrased and reordered, as follows:

1. Did the circuit court err in finding J.D. to be a CINA?

2. Did the circuit court abuse its discretion by ordering that Father's visitation with J.D. be supervised?

3. Did procedural delays deny Father his due process rights?

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

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. CINA Petition & Shelter Care

On December 23, 2019, the Baltimore City Department of Social Services ("the Department") filed, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, a Petition with Request for Shelter Care on behalf of J.D., who was born days earlier. The Petition stated that J.D. was a CINA because Mother had "tested positive for fentanyl and methadone upon delivery of [J.D.] at Johns Hopkins Hospital," Mother had a history of drug use and mental health issues, and Mother reported that "she does not yet have a safe place for [J.D.] to sleep." It further noted that Father questioned paternity and had requested a paternity test.

Following a shelter care hearing that same day, a magistrate recommended that J.D. be placed in shelter care due to Mother's positive toxicology screens for various substances since 2019 and Father's questioning of paternity.^[2] The court ordered that J.D. be placed in the care of her maternal aunt, A.C., that Mother not reside in the home with A.C. and J.D., and that Mother and Father's visitations take place at a visitation center.

In January 2020, the parties received the results of a paternity test, which determined that Father was the biological father of J.D. As a result, on March 4, 2020, the Department amended its petition to include this information.

On July 24, 2020, the circuit court issued an order providing that J.D. be returned to Mother's care under an order controlling conduct ("OCC"). The order noted that J.D.'s counsel objected to this course of action.^[3] The conditions of the OCC were as follows:

Mother shall comply with her substance abuse treatment and her mental health treatment.

Mother shall [allow the Department] and Child's counsel announced and unannounced visits.

Mother shall be allowed to live in the home of the present caretaker (Mother's sister).

Father shall be allowed supervised visits. Pursuant to this order, Mother assumed providing care for J.D.

II. Adjudication Hearing and Order

On August 31, 2020, the magistrate held a remote adjudication hearing.^[4] Mother and Father, both represented by counsel, were present, as were counsel for the Department and counsel for J.D. The parties proffered that they had agreed to the stipulated facts, including that Mother had mental health and drug problems, that her toxicology screens were positive at J.D.'s birth, that Father had supervised visits at A.C.'s home, and that Mother and Father "at times have had a conflictual relationship." Counsel for the Department advised that the parties previously had agreed to bifurcate the adjudication and disposition hearings, with the latter to be held in December 2020 to allow for further investigation. Father, however, voiced his objection, stating that he wanted the matter settled that day.^[5] Father eventually withdrew his objection after the court explained that this was a continuation to allow time for the Department and J.D.'s attorney to gather more information.

After the court accepted the agreed upon facts and stated that the contested disposition would be held on December 4, 2020, Father's counsel requested unsupervised day visits with J.D., pending the Department's approval of his home environment. Counsel proffered that Father had requested an inspection of his residence, but the Department had not yet conducted one. Counsel stated that Father had lived in the home for three years, he had stable employment, and he previously had dropped off supplies at A.C.'s home for J.D., including diapers, clothing, and groceries.

Mother's counsel objected to unsupervised visitation for Father, stating that Mother and Father had a tumultuous relationship, Father had not completed any sort of parenting classes, and Mother had not seen his home. J.D.'s attorney agreed that it would be in J.D.'s best interest for Father's visitation to be supervised. Counsel for the Department also agreed, adding that the Department did not receive the request to inspect Father's home until that day. It stated that it would begin the process to conduct the inspection.

Following these arguments, the court stated that Father's visitation would continue to be supervised, noting that Father was entitled to liberal visitation at A.C.'s home. Father interjected that he was "not comfortable there," and he requested that visitation take place elsewhere, but the court denied that request.^[6]

That same day, the circuit court issued an Adjudication Order, which included the following facts to which the parties stipulated:

1. Respondent's Mother . . . tested positive for fentanyl and methadone upon delivery of Respondent at Johns Hopkins Hospital.

2. Mother admitted a history of daily polysubstance abuse, including regular use of heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, and [X]anax. Mother is in the CAP program through Johns Hopkins Hospital. She has been in the program since November 2019. She is doing well in that program. She graduated to the intensive outpatient program in July 2020. She has since been referred to the regular outpatient program at CAP, and attends 6 sessions a week. She participates in individual counseling sessions and daily online NA meetings, and has a sponsor through NA. Mother also has completed parenting classes with Family Tree.

3. Prior to the Shelter care hearing, Mother reported that her last drug use during her pregnancy was on 12/01/2019, when Mother used fentanyl. Toxicology screens were still positive at birth, and during pregnancy.

4. Mother is diagnosed with major depressive disorder. Mother was hospitalized for depression in May 2019, for 5 days in-patient treatment at JHH Meyer psychiatric unit. This in-patient psychiatric hospitalization occurred during Mother's pregnancy with Respondent. Mother is participating in mental health treatment through CAP.

5. Mother shared that she struggled at times with her mental health during her pregnancy.

6. Mother resides in the home of the maternal aunt. The respondent was returned to the care of her mother on July 24, 2020. Mother has been providing appropriate care for the respondent.

7. Father of the respondent has been determined to be [Father] through paternity testing. The Father works as a heavy equipment operator at the Port of Baltimore, driving a forklift. He has a two bedroom house and is asking that it be inspected by the Department.

8. The parents at times have had a conflictual relationship. However, since Respondent has been born, there have been no reports of any physical conflicts.

9. Father has had supervised visits at the Maternal Aunt's home. He has provided some supplies for the Respondent such as pampers, clothes, milk, etc. for Respondent. The visits go well.

The Order further provided that, pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. Article ("CJ") § 3-817 (2020 Repl. Vol.), the allegations in the CINA petition had been proven by a preponderance of the evidence, and "the facts recommended by the parties as stated herein were sustained." It also found, pursuant to CJ § 3-819, that there was good cause to delay the disposition hearing to a later date because "further investigation [was] needed."

III. Disposition Hearing and Order

The circuit court held a disposition hearing on December 4, 2020, and January 7, 2021. The Department proffered that, although Mother had a "brief relapse" in early November, she had been doing "fairly well" under the OCC and was participating in substance abuse counseling and mental health treatment. The Department stated that Mother continued to live with J.D. at A.C.'s home, and it "did not have any concerns with the care that Mother [was] providing." It asked the court to find J.D. to be a CINA and to allow her to remain in Mother's care under an Order of Protective Supervision ("OPS"), with conditions similar to those in the OCC. With regard to Father, the Department recommended supervised visitations due to "incidences of volatility between Father" and Mother and her family. J.D.'s attorney argued that J.D. should be placed in A.C.'s care because Mother had tested positive for illicit substances four times since assuming primary caretaking duties in July 2020.

Counsel for Mother agreed with the Department's request for supervised visitation and noted that one of Mother's relapses was "mainly due to a misunderstanding" regarding her medications. Father requested physical custody of J.D. and asked that the case be dismissed as being non-CINA because no facts of abuse or neglect were sustained against him, and he was able and willing to care for the child.

The Department called Sarita Hall, J.D.'s case worker, as its only witness. She testified that, since July 2020, J.D. had lived with her Mother at A.C.'s home, along with Mother's mother and Mother's teenage brother. Ms Hall stated that Mother had complied with the portion of the OCC requiring her to permit announced and...