In re: E.R., T.R., J.R., and D.B.
196 A.3d 541
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2018Background
- GCDSS filed four identical CINA petitions for mother T.P.’s children after an incident involving mother and her then‑boyfriend; petitions alleged parents were "unable or unwilling" to care for each child.
- The petitions included detailed factual allegations about mother but contained no factual allegations about the noncustodial fathers other than names and addresses.
- At shelter care, a magistrate placed each child with his respective father; mother consented to placements.
- At adjudication the magistrate sustained nearly all allegations against mother, found no allegations sustained against the fathers, and recommended custody to the fathers with joint legal custody retained.
- Juvenile court ratified the recommendation; mother appealed, arguing (inter alia) that bare‑bones petitions were insufficient to permit transfer of custody to noncustodial fathers and that procedural safeguards for custody modification were bypassed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (T.P.) | Defendant's Argument (GCDSS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of CINA pleading as to noncustodial parents | GCDSS must plead specific facts showing noncustodial parents are unable/unwilling before filing a petition | Local dept may file to protect child even without full facts about noncustodial parent, but must plead some factual support | CINA statute and rules require factual allegations as to noncustodial parents, but minimal predicates (e.g., acquiescence) suffice; bare‑bones here was defective but not reversible because remedies would not restore children to unsafe custody |
| Authority to award custody to noncustodial parent when allegations sustained only against custodial parent | Transfer of custody in CINA without a prior custody‑modification showing violates parental rights and custody modification procedures | CJ §3‑819(e) permits court to award custody to another parent when allegations are sustained against only one parent and another parent is willing/able | Court may transfer custody under CJ §3‑819(e); statute contemplates such disposition in CINA proceedings |
| Whether local dept must delay filing to investigate noncustodial parent | Requiring delay risks child safety; but cannot impute unproven faults to noncustodial parent | Local dept should plead factual basis and may proceed to protect child; attorney certification limits frivolous assertions | Best practice: plead some factual support (acquiescence often sufficient) and continue investigation/amend petition as facts develop; filing need not be deferred if child safety requires prompt action |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Ashley S., 431 Md. 678 (2013) (standard of appellate review on factual CINA findings)
- In re Russell G., 108 Md. App. 366 (1996) (acquiescence by noncustodial parent can support CINA pleading as to that parent)
- In re Najasha B., 409 Md. 20 (2009) (juvenile court need not dismiss a defective CINA petition and petition may proceed through adjudication)
- In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551 (2003) (Maryland placement hierarchy favors placement with parents/relatives over foster care)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have fundamental liberty interest in care and custody of children)
- McDermott v. Daugherty, 385 Md. 320 (2005) (parental constitutional right to care, custody, and control of children)