Jurovich v. Harford Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs.

SARAH AND PETER JUROVICH v. HARFORD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

No. 0924-2020

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

August 6, 2021

Circuit Court for Harford County Case No. C-12-CV-19-001032

Graeff, Zic, Woodward, Patrick L. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION ^[*]

Zic J.

Peter Jurovich ("Father") and Sarah Jurovich ("Stepmother"), appellants, appeal an order of the Office of Administrative Hearings ("OAH") in which the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") found there was a preponderance of the evidence in the record to support the appellee's, Harford County Department of Social Services (the "Department"), finding of indicated child neglect. The ALJ denied Father and Stepmother's Motion for Summary Decision, finding that the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not apply to the case. We agree with the ALJ's determinations and affirm the decision of the OAH. We explain.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Father and Stepmother present two questions for appellate review ^[1] which we have rephrased as follows:

1. Was the ALJ correct in finding that, concerning the indicated neglect determination, the facts of the case do not satisfy the requirements of the common law doctrine of collateral estoppel?

2. Was there substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ's affirmance of the Department's finding of indicated child neglect?

For the reasons outlined below, we answer both questions in the affirmative and shall affirm the judgment of the OAH.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Factual Background

Father married Pamela N. in 1995 and had three daughters, L* ^[2] I*, and R*. I* was born in 2000 and R* was born in 2003. (We will sometimes refer to I* and R* as "the girls"). I* suffered from depression while living in Idaho, engaged in self harm, and attempted suicide. Father and Ms. N. divorced in 2009 and Father subsequently married Stepmother in 2015. Father obtained full custody of the girls in 2015. After Father married Stepmother, Father, Stepmother, and the girls moved to Maryland and temporarily stayed with Stepmother's parents in Baltimore County. Father, Stepmother, and the girls subsequently moved to their own home in Harford County in 2016. L* left the family home after her high school graduation and "did not leave on good terms with [Stepmother] and [Father]." Father "prevented L* from maintaining contact with I* and R*" after she left the home.

Stepmother was verbally abusive to the girls and threatened them with physical violence. She called them "bitches, sluts, brats, and, whores" and threatened to "smash their faces and rip their hair out." Father did not threaten to physically harm the girls but "overheard abusive statements made by [Stepmother] to I* and R* and has done nothing." R* stated that she overheard Stepmother telling Father that he "should have left those bitches in Idaho." Stepmother mocked I* for her issues with low weight, "describing her as anorexic and a Holocaust victim."

I* saw a therapist for "a few sessions" before discontinuing therapy because she "became concerned [Stepmother] and [Father] would learn what was happening in therapy." After giving the girls cellphones as a gift in 2017, Father and Stepmother subsequently took the phones away because Father and Stepmother "discovered that R* and I* intended to attend a party in February 2018 where alcohol would be present," "observed messages between R* and a boy discussing vaping," and "found a photo of R* holding a bottle of vodka on her cellphone." Father and Stepmother also ordered the girls to "refrain from speaking to one another in the home, including having them each eat separately and alone, because the girls stopped talking to [Stepmother] and [Father]." After I* and R* snuck out of the house to attend prom, Father and Stepmother removed the doors from the girls' bedrooms. Additionally, "as punishment for the prom incident," Stepmother and Father took away the girls' summer jobs and their house keys "so they could not enter their home unsupervised." Not having a way to enter the home alone, the girls "remained at school after school hours and sat on benches waiting to be picked up or took the bus home and sat outside the house until [Father] or [Stepmother] returned home."

In May 2018, R* reported that she "contemplated suicide weekly, but did not want to leave I*." On May 31, 2018, I* graduated from high school. That same day, Father "took I*, with her belongings in trash bags, and left the home," and both Stepmother and Father "refused to tell R* where I* had been taken," which "frightened R*." Father took I* to live with Mr. and Mrs. Matthews (Stepmother's parents) and I* "had no prior knowledge that she would be leaving the home." While I* was living with Stepmother's parents, I* was not given the alarm code and was forced to stay in the house whenever she was there alone. In June 2018, Stepmother's mother, "suspected I* contaminated her almond milk with sunscreen lotion." I* was then taken and admitted to Sheppard Pratt Health System where I* was diagnosed with "[u]nspecified disruptive, impulse-control and conduct disorder" and "[d]isruptive mood dysregulation disorder."

On June 15, 2018, the Department removed I* and R* from the custody of Father. I* and R* were placed in the same foster home. The girls' foster mother noticed that they both "startle[d] easily." Their foster mother observed that these startle responses "lessened over time," noted that I* had gained weight, and described them as "pleasant and helpful."

Procedural History

On August 28, 2018, the Department notified Father and Stepmother that it found them responsible for indicated child abuse with mental injury and indicated child neglect of I* and R*. Father and Stepmother appealed the indicated findings, claiming the allegations were false. The OAH issued an Order for Stay of Administrative Proceedings pending the ruling on the Child in Need of Assistance ("CINA") petition concerning the welfare of the girls. During the CINA hearing, the Harford County Circuit Court, sitting as a juvenile court, found the girls CINA due to mental disorder.

On April 15, 2019, the OAH issued two separate Orders Vacating Stays and Scheduling Further Proceedings, denying Father and Stepmother's requests to modify the indicated child abuse and child neglect findings to "ruled out on the basis of collateral estoppel arising from the disposition in the CINA matter," vacating the stays, and directing the OAH to schedule contested case hearings concerning the abuse and neglect findings made by the Department. Father and Stepmother subsequently filed a Motion for Summary Decision, ^[3] again arguing that the Department was collaterally estopped from pursuing contested case hearings concerning the alleged child abuse and child neglect because the issues were fully litigated in the CINA hearing. The OAH permitted oral argument on the Motion for Summary Decision before holding a contested case hearing concerning the abuse and neglect allegations. The ALJ denied the Motion for Summary Decision, finding collateral estoppel inapplicable. The ALJ found that there was not enough evidence in the record to support a finding of indicated child abuse with mental injury but upheld the Department's finding of indicated child neglect. The Circuit Court for Harford County affirmed the ruling of the OAH. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

"In an appeal from judicial review of an agency action, we look through the decision of the circuit court and review the agency's decision directly." Chi. Title Ins. Co v. Jen, 249 Md.App. 246, 258 (2021) (quoting W. Montgomery County Citizens Ass'n v. Montgomery County Plan. Bd. of the Maryland-Nat'l Cap. Park & Plan. Comm'n, 248 Md.App. 314, 332-33 (2020)). "Our review of the [agency's decision] is 'limited to determining if there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the [agency's] findings and conclusions, and to determine if the [agency's] decision is premised on an erroneous conclusion of law.'" Chi. Title Ins. Co., 249 Md.App. at 258 (quoting Clarksville Residents Against Mortuary Def. Fund, Inc. v. Donaldson Properties, 453 Md. 516, 532 (2017)).

When an appellate court determines whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the agency's factual findings, it must "decide 'whether a reasoning mind reasonably could have reached the factual conclusion the agency reached.'" Chi. Title Ins. Co., 249 Md.App. at 258 (quoting W. Montgomery County Citizens Ass'n, 248 Md.App. at 333). We review "the agency's final decision, not the ALJ's decision, . . . for substantial evidence. . . . More precisely, this Court's '"job" [is] not to assess the "rationality" of or evidentiary basis for the ALJ's recommendation; it [is] to assess the rationality or evidentiary basis of the agency's . . . final order.'" Para v. 1691 Ltd. P'ship, 211 Md.App. 335, 355 (2013) (alterations in original) (quoting State of Maryland Comm'n on Hum. Rels. v. Kaydon Ring & Seal, Inc., 149 Md.App. 666, 692 (2003)).

An appellate court's review of the agency's legal conclusions, however, "is less deferential to the agency" and this Court may "decide the correctness of the agency's conclusions and to substitute [its] judgment for that of the agency's." Taylor v Harford County Dep't of Soc. Servs., 384 Md. 213, 222 (2004) (quoting Charles County Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Vann, 382 Md. 286, 295 (2004)). Even so, "an agency's legal interpretation of [a] statute it administers or of its own regulations is entitled to some deference." Taylor, 384 Md. at 222. Still, "[t]he application of collateral estoppel . . . is a separate legal question, subject to de novo review." Garrity v. Maryland State Bd. of Plumbing, 221 Md.App. 678,...