84 A.3d 223
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2014Background
- Ms. D. has five children; Joy D. and Malachi D. were placed in BCDSS custody at various times beginning in 2007-2011 due to concerns over Ms. D.'s conduct and mental health.
- Ms. D. was found to have Borderline Personality Disorder and exhibited volatile, explosive behavior affecting parenting and interactions with BCDSS workers.
- Joy and Malachi were adjudicated as CINA in 2010; after prior proceedings and attempts at reunification, Joy was placed with BCDSS in 2011 and has remained out of Ms. D.’s care since then.
- In 2013, during a permanency planning review, the court found ongoing safety concerns and limited progress toward reunification, with a plan to pursue a concurrent/relative placement model.
- BCDSS moved to waive reasonable reunification efforts under CJP § 3-812(d), asserting that Ms. D. had involuntarily lost rights to a sibling (Linda and India) in 2003 and that further reunification efforts were futile and not in Joy’s best interests.
- Joy, by counsel, joined the waiver request, citing Ms. D.’s noncooperation and email communications indicating unwillingness to engage with BCDSS.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3-812(d) is mandatory or discretionary | Joy contends courts exercise discretion; 3-812(d) is not strictly mandatory. | BCDSS argues the statute is mandatory: if a waiver condition exists, the court shall grant the waiver. | Statutory language is mandatory; court must grant waiver when conditions exist. |
| Whether the court properly applied the waiver based on involuntary loss of rights to a sibling | Ms. D. argues prior termination should not force a mandatory waiver without considering best interests. | BCDSS contends prior involuntary termination to a sibling satisfies § 3-812(b), triggering mandatory waiver. | Yes; the prior involuntary termination of rights to a sibling satisfies § 3-812(b) and obligates waiver. |
| Whether the court abused its discretion in evaluating the record for foil of reunification | Ms. D. contends the court should have considered attempts at services and compliance. | BCDSS argues evidence shows continued risk and lack of meaningful engagement, justifying waiver. | No abuse; record supports finding that reasonable efforts were futile given mother’s conduct and disorder. |
| Constitutional challenge to mandatory waiver | Ms. D. asserts mandatory waiver violates fundamental parental rights and due process. | BCDSS asserts waiver statute is constitutional and preserved benefits of timely permanency. | Not reached; constitutional challenge not preserved for appellate review. |
| Whether Joy’s interests support waiver and final permanency planning | Joy argues continued waiver expedites permanency. | BCDSS asserts permanency and stable placement require immediate waiver to finalize care. | Waiver upheld; order affirmed to prioritize stability and permanency. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Joseph N., 407 Md. 278 (2009) (reasonable efforts presumption and reunification framework)
- In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551 (2003) (reunification policy and best interests standard)
- State v. Phillips, 210 Md. App. 239 (2013) (statutory interpretation principles)
- In re James G., 178 Md. App. 543 (2008) (AFSA waiver background and reunification concerns)
- In re: Hall v. State, 22 Md. App. 1 (1974) (preservation of constitutional issues on appeal)