In re A.S.

IN RE: A.S. AND E.B.

No. 542

No. 764

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2020

March 10, 2021

Circuit Court for Prince George's County

Case Nos. CINA-18-0221 & CINA-18-0222

UNREPORTED

Fader, C.J., Kehoe, Friedman, JJ.

Opinion by Fader, C.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.

The Circuit Court for Prince George's County, sitting as a juvenile court, determined that half-siblings A. and E. each was a Child in Need of Assistance ("CINA"),¹ and committed both to the custody of the Prince George's County Department of Social Services (the "Department"). I.S., the appellant and mother of the children ("Mother"), asks us to overturn that decision on the grounds that: (1) the circuit court erred in admitting hearsay statements during the children's adjudicatory hearing; (2) there was insufficient evidence to sustain the court's finding of neglect; and (3) the court erred in failing to make a specific finding that the Department had engaged in reasonable efforts to prevent the placement of A. and E. into the Department's custody. To the extent preserved, we find no error or abuse of discretion in the court's admission of evidence, and we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the court's finding of neglect. And although the court erred in failing to make express findings regarding reasonable efforts, we conclude that that error was harmless under the circumstances.

BACKGROUND

Factual Background

Mother has two children: A., born in December 2017, and E., born in July 2015. A. and E. have different fathers, neither of whom is a party to this appeal.² Mother and thechildren lived with their maternal grandmother ("Maternal Grandmother") until spring 2018, when Mother left that residence and took the children to stay at a friend's house. Because Mother believed that the friend's house was "a dirty environment" for the children, she asked E.'s paternal grandmother ("Paternal Grandmother") for help with childcare. Paternal Grandmother obliged and initially took both children into her care, but then arranged for a cousin, Ladonna N., to take care of A. Aside from a two-week period during which he stayed with Mother, A. has lived with Ms. N. continuously since April 30, 2018.

On May 30, 2018, Mother signed two temporary custody agreements: one giving Paternal Grandmother custody of E. and the other giving Ms. N. custody of A.³ Less than a month later, in June 2018, Mother took E. from Paternal Grandmother's home. Although Paternal Grandmother thought that E. would be returning a few days later, Mother did not return E. to Paternal Grandmother until late October or sometime in November 2018.

From June 2018 through October 2018, Mother and E. resided with Maternal Grandmother. Maternal Grandmother testified that in October 2018, she had a boyfriend named Dean, who had been at her house "once or twice[.]" The only other man who had been in the house during that span was Maternal Grandmother's adult son, who stopped by occasionally for short periods.

The Department's Investigation

On October 22, 2018, the Department received a report alleging that then-three-year-old E. had been sexually abused. According to the report, during her bath time, E. told her great-grandmother that someone named "Pop-pop" had touched her "down there," while pointing to her vaginal area, and said that "it hurt." E. said that Pop-pop was someone "at grandma's house."

Upon receiving the report, Fattimata Mohamed Ali, the Department's assigned investigator, contacted Mother by phone to "schedule a meeting with [Mother] to see [E.]." Although Mother had sent E. to live with a friend in Alexandria, Virginia, Mother did not tell Ms. Ali that E. was not with her. Instead, Mother arranged to meet Ms. Ali the following day, October 23, but provided Ms. Ali with an address for an apartment unit that did not exist. When Ms. Ali called Mother to verify, Mother provided the same incorrect address. Mother then agreed to meet at the Department instead but declined Ms. Ali's offer of transportation. Mother failed to attend the meeting.

The following day, Ms. Ali visited Maternal Grandmother's residence to attempt to locate Mother, but neither Mother nor E. were at the house. Maternal Grandmother and other family informed Ms. Ali that Mother "no longer liv[es] at th[e] address," "that she stays with different friends," and that "they d[id not] know her whereabouts[.]" Ms. Ali asked the family for help bringing Mother into the Department, and subsequently tried contacting Mother by calling a different phone number provided by Maternal Grandmother. Ms. Ali was unable to reach Mother at that number, and the line disconnected before Ms. Ali could leave a voicemail message.

Ms. Ali subsequently "received phone calls from [Mother]'s family members stating that . . . [E.] was in Virginia" and "not with [Maternal Grandmother] as [Mother] told us." Ms. Ali confirmed that E. had been living in Alexandria, Virginia with Iesha M., a family friend.⁴ On October 30, Ms. N. and Ms. M. brought E. to the Department for a forensic interview, which Mother did not attend. During the interview, E. "did not make a disclosure" as to the identity of Pop-pop but also "did not deny anything." She further "could not . . . identify the body parts that no one is supposed to touch." E. stated during the interview that she did not want to return to Mother because "[s]he was left home alone by her mother and she saw monsters." Based on the interview, the Department concluded that it could neither rule out nor substantiate the allegations of sexual abuse. After the interview, E. returned to Virginia with Ms. M. under a safety plan.

On November 2, 2018, Ms. Ali met Mother in person for the first time. Mother denied the allegations of sexual abuse and claimed that she did not know the identity of Pop-pop. She believed the allegations were fabricated because "people want[ed] to take the children from her." Although Mother told Ms. Ali that she was homeless, she also claimed that she lived at Maternal Grandmother's residence. Mother provided no explanation for why she did not tell Ms. Ali that E. was living in Virginia at the start of the investigation. Ms. Ali and Mother developed a safety plan pursuant to which A. and E. would continue to stay in the care of Ms. N. and Paternal Grandmother, respectively.

Initiation of CINA Proceedings

In mid-November 2018, less than two weeks after Mother met with Ms. Ali and after learning of concerns that Mother was going to take the children away from their caregivers, the Department filed CINA petitions on behalf of each child based on safety concerns that Mother lacked housing and would take the children "to the home where [E.] was allegedly abused." The Department assumed temporary custody of the children pursuant to orders for shelter care. In January 2019, the court authorized the children's continued placement in shelter care and ordered that A. continue to reside with Ms. N. and that E. continue to reside with Paternal Grandmother. In initial and revised shelter care orders for each child, the juvenile court expressly found that the Department had made "reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removal" of the children.

On August 13, 2019, the Department filed amended CINA petitions as to each child. In addition to noting the allegation of sexual abuse—including that the allegation had not been substantiated—the Department claimed that, among other things, Mother "made [E.] unavailable to . . . conduct a timely forensic interview," "did not take her to the hospital," and "was not candid . . . about where she lived or what she knew about . . . the allegations." The Department sought "court oversight to ensure [A. and E. are] cared for in a safe and appropriate environment."

The Adjudicatory Hearing

A two-day adjudicatory hearing on the amended CINA petitions was held on August 13 and October 22, 2019. During the hearing, the juvenile court received evidence and heard testimony from Ms. Ali, Ms. N., Paternal Grandmother, the children's maternalgreat-grandmother, E.'s paternal great-grandmother, Maternal Grandmother, and Mother. In addition to the facts presented above, Ms. N. testified that Mother knew the identity of Pop-pop and had said that Pop-pop had previously "touched [Mother's] little sister[.]" The court also received into evidence a text message that Mother had sent to Ms. N., in which Mother wrote, "I know who he is and it will get handled not only did he do it to [E.] he do it to my little sister too[.]"

During her testimony, Mother denied that she knew anyone named Pop-pop or that any man had lived with E., and she stated that she initially did not believe the allegations. Although family members implored Mother to take E. for a medical examination after the alleged abuse, Mother testified that she did not do so. Mother gave different explanations for not taking E. to the doctor. She initially averred that she tried to "get [E.] checked out" at a medical clinic where a family friend worked but was unsuccessful. Mother did not take E. for an examination after that, she said, because she "came to realize that nothing [had] happened to [her] daughter," and she thought that E.'s great-grandmother had fabricated the allegations. Mother later testified that she did not want to take E. to a doctor out of fear that the Department would take E. from her. Mother claimed that she had completed a parenting course and was about to start a new job. She also testified that she did not know where—or whether—E. went to school and lacked knowledge of E.'s medical history.

Paternal Grandmother testified that Mother had had little contact with E. since she came into Paternal Grandmother's care in 2018. Ms. N. similarly...