Reyna De La Paz De Trejos Garcia v. Panameno

REYNA DE LA PAZ DE TREJOS GARCIA v. ISRAEL ANTONIO TREJOS PANAMENO

No. 44

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2017

March 12, 2018

Circuit Court for Prince George's County

Case No. CAD16-45076

UNREPORTED

Berger, Friedman, Sharer, J. Frederick (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Berger, J.

Dissenting Opinion by Friedman, 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.

This appeal arises from an order of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland, denying Reyna de la Paz de Trejos Garcia ("Mother"), appellant, legal custody of Adriana Emperatriz Trejos Garcia ("Daughter"). According to her complaint, Mother is the biological parent of Daughter, and Daughter has had no contact with the father, Israel Antonio Trejos Panameno ("Father"), appellee, since Daughter was two years old. Mother also asked the circuit court to find that Daughter is entitled to Special Immigrant Juvenile Status ("SIJ Status"). Although Father admitted the truth of Mother's allegations, the circuit court denied Mother's request for custody and found that Daughter was not entitled to SIJ Status. Mother timely appealed.

On appeal, Mother presents two questions for our review, which we have rephrased as follows:

1. Whether the circuit court erred in declining to grant custody of Daughter to Mother.

2. Whether the circuit court erred in finding that Daughter is not entitled to SIJ Status.

For the reasons discussed herein, we shall dismiss Mother's appeal for mootness.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Daughter was born in San Miguel, El Salvador, on March 30, 1996. Mother moved to the United States soon after Daughter was born, leaving Daughter in the care of her maternal grandmother. During this time, Mother maintained contact with Daughter and gave her financial support. When Daughter was two years old, Father left El Salvador, and he has not contacted or supported Daughter since then. In 2016, when Daughter was twentyyears old, Daughter witnessed the murder -- apparently gang-related -- of four men. Thereafter, Daughter received numerous death threats, causing her to flee El Salvador. Daughter arrived in the United States on August 14, 2016, where she was detained by Customs and Border Patrol for about five weeks. After passing a credible fear interview, she was released to the custody of Mother.

On December 13, 2016, Mother filed a complaint for custody in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland. In her complaint, Mother alleged the facts stated above, requested sole custody of Daughter, and asked the court to determine that Daughter was entitled to SIJ Status. Mother argued that Daughter had been abandoned by a parent -- Father -- and would have a better life in the United States than in El Salvador. In response, Father admitted the truth of all allegations and asked the court to award custody of Daughter to Mother.

The custody hearing was held on February 6, 2017, with the circuit court sitting as a juvenile court. Mother and Daughter both testified, and their testimony largely confirmed the allegations in Mother's complaint. Father was not present. At the end of the hearing, the circuit court found that Daughter was a minor under Maryland law and that Mother was the biological mother of Daughter. The circuit court denied, however, that Daughter was entitled to SIJ Status:

The testimony is that the father was not involved in her -- minor child's life. That the Plaintiff left the minor child in the care of the father when minor child was a very young child. The testimony is that the -- El Salvador is her country of native origin. And assessing the testimony, the Court does not find that the minor child was of -- subject of abuse, abandonment,or neglect. And, therefore, will deny the request for Special Immigration [sic] Juvenile Status.

The circuit court did not make an explicit ruling on the issue of custody, and Mother apparently believed that she had been awarded custody of Daughter. Thereafter, Mother filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its finding that Daughter was not entitled to SIJ Status. A few weeks after the hearing, Mother discovered, upon reviewing the docket, that the court had denied her request for legal custody of Daughter. On March 9, 2017, the circuit court denied Mother's motion for reconsideration.

DISCUSSION

Mother argues that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying her request for custody of Daughter "without providing any reason, analysis, or finding regarding the Daughter's best interest." Mother goes on to argue that the circuit court erred in finding that Daughter was not entitled to SIJ Status.¹ We will not reach the merits of Mother's claims, however, because Daughter is no longer a child for the purposes of the underlying custody proceeding. The circuit court, therefore, no longer has jurisdiction over Mother's case, and we must dismiss the present appeal for mootness.

A. The Circuit Court Cannot Exercise Jurisdiction Over Mother's Claims Because Daughter Is No Longer a "Child" Under Maryland Law.

The jurisdiction of a court of equity in custody proceedings is circumscribed by statute. See Md. Code (1984, 2012 Repl. Vol., 2016 Supp.), § 1-201 of the Family Law Article ("Fam. Law"). An equity court "has jurisdiction over . . . custody or guardianship of an immigrant child pursuant to a motion for Special Immigrant Juvenile factual findings[.]" Fam. Law § 1-201 (emphasis added). For the purposes of such a proceeding, a "child" is an unmarried individual under the age of twenty-one years. Fam. Law § 1-201. As we explained in a prior case,

circuit courts that have jurisdiction over custody and guardianship are able to make the necessary predicate order findings [for SIJ Status] until the child reaches the age of 21 based upon events occurring before the child was 18 years old.

In re Dany G., 223 Md. App. 707, 716 (2015) (emphasis added). An equity court's jurisdiction over such matters ends, therefore, when the child in question turns twenty-one.

In the present case, Daughter turned twenty-one on March 30, 2017. Daughter is no longer a child, therefore, for the purposes of the underlying custody proceeding. Indeed, Daughter is an adult for most purposes under Maryland law. See Md. Code (2014), § 1-401 of the General Provisions Article ("Gen. Prov.") (setting the age of majority at eighteen years). If we were to remand the case, as Mother would have us do, the circuit court would be obliged to dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction.

Mother argues that "the trial court below retains equitable jurisdiction." To be sure, "a court of equity, having obtained jurisdiction over a controversy, will retain jurisdiction in order to administer complete relief." Jacham Enterprises, Inc. v. Hoffman, 233 Md. 432,438 (1964).² This broad formulation of equitable principles does not, however, negate the age-based jurisdictional limits that the General Assembly has placed on custody proceedings in courts of equity.

Further, the circuit court can no longer "administer complete relief" in the present case. An equity court is authorized to "direct who shall have the custody or guardianship of a child." Fam. Law § 1-201 (emphasis added). Legal custody is "the right and obligation to make long range decisions" about a child's life, along with "the right and obligation to provide a home" for the child. Santo v. Santo, 448 Md. 620, 627 (2016). These rights and obligations generally terminate when the child reaches the age of eighteen years. See Fam. Law § 5-203.³ As we have explained, the age limit is a little higher -- twenty-one years -- for the purposes of the present proceeding. Fam. Law § 1-201. Because Daughter has passed all of these age limits, we can say conclusively that Mother's parental rights and obligations have ended. Now that Daughter is an adult, she has the right to make her own"long range decisions" and to live where she pleases. The circuit court may not, therefore, place Daughter in the legal custody of Mother or anyone else.⁴

Mother cites Ross v. Hoffman, 280 Md. 172 (1977), for the proposition that equity courts have "continuing" jurisdiction over custody proceedings. In that case, the Court of Appeals held that the circuit court's grant of custody to a non-consanguineous third party, rather than the biological mother, was not an abuse of discretion. Id. at 192. Notably, the child in Ross was ten years old at the time the opinion was reported, and there was no challenge to the jurisdiction of the circuit court. Id. at 181. When read in context and without ellipses, the portion of Ross quoted by Mother is entirely consistent with our holding in the present case:

The court [of equity] may direct who shall have the custody of a child, decide who shall be charged with its support and maintenance, and determine who shall have visitation rights. This jurisdiction is a continuing one, and the court may from time to time set aside or modify its decree or order concerning the child.

Id. at 174 (emphasis added). The point of this passage is that the jurisdiction of an equity court does not necessarily terminate when the court enters an order or decree. It does notfollow, however, that the court retains its "continuing" jurisdiction after the child reaches adulthood.

Indeed, in matters of family law, Maryland courts have been careful to remain within the jurisdictional limits set by the General Assembly. The Court of Appeals has held, for example, that a trial court may not modify a child support agreement after the child in question reaches the age of majority. Brodsky v. Brodsky, 319 Md. 92, 100 (1990). Likewise, this Court has held that a circuit court's modification of a child support agreement ceases to have any effect after the child reaches the age of majority, regardless...