In re L.F.

IN RE: L.F.

No. 1230

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2016

March 28, 2017

Circuit Court for Baltimore City

Case No. T14205010

UNREPORTED

Kehoe, Berger, Leahy, JJ.

Opinion by Berger, 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.

Appellant, Ronald F. ("Father"), challenges a judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, sitting as a juvenile court, terminating his parental rights with respect to his daughter, L.F., and granting guardianship to the Baltimore City Department of Social Services ("the Department").¹ Father presents three issues for our review, which we have rephrased slightly as follows:

I. Whether the juvenile court erred by denying Father's motion to stay the termination of parental rights ("TPR") proceedings.

II. Whether the juvenile court erred by excluding evidence regarding a potential relative resource and regarding the foster mother's divorce.

III. Whether the juvenile court erred by terminating Father's parental rights.

For the foregoing reasons, we shall affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

L.F. was born on September 9, 2012. L.F. was exposed to opiates and cocaine in utero and suffered from withdrawal symptoms shortly after birth. L.F. was also exposed to HIV and Hepatitis C, for which she received medications. Three days after birth, L.F. was placed in shelter care.² Upon her release from the hospital, L.F. was placed with afoster parent, Ms. C., with whom she has since remained.³ At the time of L.F.'s birth, L.F.'s mother identified Father as L.F.'s biological father, but Father's name does not appear on L.F.'s birth certificate. The juvenile court found L.F. to be a Child in Need of Assistance ("CINA") on October 23, 2012.⁴ The juvenile court committed L.F. to the custody of the Department. The Department continued to attempt to locate Father.

Throughout the time L.F. remained in foster care, the circuit court held periodic CINA review and permanency review hearings. Father had limited contact with the Department. On November 12, 2012, Father telephoned the Department's case worker, Ella Williams. Father left a message for Ms. Williams stating that he would come to the Department with his attorney. Father left no contact information, but Ms. Williams was ultimately able to contact Father. Ms. Williams scheduled a meeting for December, but Father did not attend.

In January 2013, Father contacted the Department, said that he would attend a future hearing, and requested a paternity test. Father did not appear at the next CINA hearing on March 13, 2013. The Department continued to attempt to contact Father. On April 26, 2013, Ms. Williams' supervisor learned through online records that Father had been incarcerated at the Baltimore City Detention Center. The Department attempted to arrange for paternity testing for Father, but Father was released on May 2, 2013, before paternitytesting could be completed. On May 6, 2013, the Department sent Father a letter asking him to come to an appointment scheduled for May 15, 2013 to discuss L.F.'s permanency plan and develop a service agreement. At Father's request, the meeting was postponed to May 17, 2013. Ms. Williams prepared a service agreement in preparation for the appointment, but Father failed to attend the rescheduled meeting.

On May 29, 2013, Ms. Williams sent Father a letter via certified mail, asking Father to contact her to schedule a meeting. The certified letter was not claimed from the post office. A CINA review hearing was held on July 17, 2013. Father did not appear. The magistrate issued a recommended order finding that the Department had made reasonable efforts toward the plan of reunification through, inter alia, attempting to meet with Father.⁵ The court did not grant Father visitation due to the reason of Father's abandonment. Furthermore, L.F.'s permanency plan was changed from reunification with a natural parent to concurrent plans of adoption by a relative or custody and guardianship. Father had no contact with the Department for the remainder of 2013.

In January 2014, Father was again incarcerated. Father first attended a CINA hearing on January 15, 2014, when he was transported from the Baltimore City Detention Center. Father requested and received a paternity test at the time. The paternity test confirmed that he was L.F.'s biological Father. The court continued the concurrent permanency plans of adoption by a relative and custody and guardianship.

Ms. Williams was in contact with Father on January 31, 2014. Ms. Williams telephoned Father while he was incarcerated on a bench warrant. Father told Ms. Williams that he wanted to gain custody of his daughter. Additionally, Father told Ms. Williams that he would visit her office on February 6, 2014, the day after his anticipated release. Father did not visit Ms. Williams's office in early February. When Ms. Williams' contacted the detention center, she learned that Father had been sentenced to a period of six months' incarceration, with an expected release date of May 27, 2014.

Ms. Williams visited Father at the detention center on May 21, 2014. She brought a service plan which she had prepared in advance of the visit. The service plan provided that Father would secure stable and adequate housing, maintain visits with L.F., participate in a drug treatment program, complete a parenting class, and participate in mental health therapy. Father did not sign the service agreement. Ms. Williams and her supervisor discussed with Father the possibility of him voluntarily surrendering his parental rights to L.F., but Father responded that only a coward would allow his child to be adopted. Father told the Department that he did not want to meet L.F.'s foster parent. Father presented the Department with names of prospective relative resources, including the paternal grandmother and a paternal aunt. Father did not provide any contact information for the relatives. Father told Ms. Williams that he anticipated being released from incarceration on May 27, 2014, and Father agreed to visit Ms. Williams in her office on May 28, 2014. Father was advised that if he did not appear for his May 28, 2014 appointment, the Department would proceed with a TPR petition.

On May 28, 2014, Father visited the Department's offices. Father asked for "Emma Williams" rather than "Ella Williams." A Department employee believed that Father was asking for "Emma Williamson," a staff member who was out of the office that day. Father was insistent that he had an appointment, but, due to the miscommunication, Father did not see Ms. Williams. Father left the office before Ms. Williams learned that he had arrived. According to Maryanne Joynes, a Department employee who spoke with Father, Father "reeked of alcohol and appeared to be intoxicated" when he visited the office. Ms. Williams sent Father a letter in which she apologized for "the mix-up" on May 28 and asked Father to schedule another meeting. Father did not respond to the letter. Father had no further contact with the Department for the remainder of 2014. On August 4, 2014, the Department filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights to L.F.

Father was again incarcerated from December 28, 2014 to January 28, 2015. Upon Father's release, Ms. Williams attempted to contact Father in multiple ways, including sending letters to two different addresses and leaving telephone messages. Ms. Williams scheduled meetings with Father, but Father did not attend. The juvenile court held a review hearing in L.F.'s CINA case on February 25, 2015. Father did not attend. Following that hearing, L.F.'s permanency plan was changed to adoption by a non-relative.

On March 4, 2015, Ms. Williams attempted to visit Father at his residence. The building was padlocked and the windows were boarded up. Ms. Williams sent Father a letter after her attempted home visit, in which she invited him to visit the Department's offices on March 20, 2015. Ms. Williams had scheduled a supervised visit for Father tomeet and visit with L.F. Ms. Williams told Father to "feel free to bring a camera" if he "would like to take pictures of" L.F.

Father attended the March 20, 2015 meeting and met L.F. for the first time. L.F., then two and one-half years old, did not engage with Father at the visit. Ms. Williams acknowledged that L.F.'s "standoffish" behavior was appropriate given the situation. Father was appropriate at the visit, which lasted less than one hour. At the end of the visit, Ms. Williams told Father that it would require more time for him to build a relationship with L.F. Ms. Williams encouraged Father to continue with visits. Ms. Williams presented Father with a service agreement, but Father refused to sign it. Subsequently, Ms. Williams offered Father additional visits, but Father did not visit with L.F. again.

In March 2015, Father's sister, P.F., contacted the Department and offered herself as a potential relative resource for L.F. The Department assessed P.F.'s home, determined it to be appropriate, and initiated visits for P.F. with L.F. On April 23, 2015, Father conditionally consented to a termination of his parental rights to L.F., provided that L.F. be adopted by P.F. The juvenile court entered an order granting guardianship of L.F. to the Department with the right to consent to adoption. L.F. gradually became more comfortable with visits with P.F., however, when L.F. began overnight visits with P.F., she would cry throughout the night and ask for her "mommy," referring to Ms. C. Ultimately, P.F. told the Department that she no longer wished to adopt L.F. because she did not want to disturb the relationship L.F. had with her foster mother.

In September 2015, Ms. Williams visited Father when he was again incarcerated....