In Re Alijah Q.
7 A.3d 106
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2010Background
- DSS petitioned Alijah Q. as a Child in Need of Assistance (CINA); Alijah placed with his father Antoine A. under protective supervision by DSS.
- Mother Lisa Q. sought exceptions after a May 2009 review recommending continued custody with father and liberal visitation for mother; the circuit court held a de novo exceptions hearing in October 2009.
- Prior to the hearing, mother’s counsel (Susan Gilhooly) withdrew at the outset; mother did not file a motion to withdraw, and the court discharged counsel over her lack of explicit waiver.
- DSS and the child’s counsel urged continuation of the master's recommendations (father retains custody; mother has supervised visitation); mother sought custody and unsupervised visitation, and to challenge DSS’s involvement.
- At the October 23, 2009 hearing, the court admitted DSS reports, heard testimony from a DSS worker, and ultimately overruled mother’s exceptions, granting custody to father and continuing supervised visitation for mother.
- On December 23, 2009, the court issued a review order closing the case in favor of father, rescinding DSS’s protective supervision, and ordering liberal and supervised visitation for mother.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the discharge of counsel without a valid waiver was reversible error | Q argued Rule 11-106(b)(1) required a personal waiver and full on-record inquiry; discharge without waiver denied due process. | A and DSS argued Rule 11-106(b) does not apply to CINA; counsel could be discharged; no deprivation of rights. | Judgment vacated; remand for further proceedings. |
| Whether the court erred in denying custody and unsupervised visitation based on the record | Mother contends she should have custody or unsupervised visitation; record supports extended rights and child’s best interests with less restrictive arrangements. | Court found continued custody with father and supervised visitation appropriate given the evidence and safety concerns. | Remanded for further proceedings; potential reevaluation on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blessen, 392 Md. 684 (Md. 2006) (waiver of right to counsel in CINA case not strictly required; discusses due process and counsel role)
- In re Maria P., 393 Md. 661 (Md. 2006) (parental liberty interest in CINA; due process considerations when counsel is involved)
- In re Christopher T., 129 Md.App. 28 (Md. Ct. App. 1999) (delinquency waiver standards; affirming strict waiver requirements in some contexts)
- In re Shawn P., 172 Md.App. 569 (Md. Ct. App. 2007) (record must reflect proper on-record questioning for waiver)
- Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (due process for appointment of counsel in dependency cases; importance of counsel for indigent parents)
- In re Blessen, 392 Md. 684 (Md. 2006) (waiver considerations in CINA context; distinction between rights and remedies)
- In re Adoption/Guardianship of Chaden M., 189 Md. App. 411 (Md. Ct. App. 2009) (statutory right to counsel includes effective representation considerations)
- In re Maria P., 393 Md. 661 (Md. 2006) (parental rights and due process in CINA settings; impact of counsel availability)
- In re Christopher T., 129 Md.App. 28 (Md. Ct. App. 1999) (waiver standards in delinquency contexts; agency principles about representation)
- Bearden v. Ark. Dept. of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 317 (Ark. 2001) (distinction between statutory right and due process right to counsel; no strict waiver requirement for statutory right)