In re: K.B., slip.op

K.B., a minor child in a CINA case, had been in her grandmother’s custody since 2016 because of Mother’s intellectual disabilities. 1
After the Department petitioned in 2023, the juvenile court adjudicated K.B. a CINA and initially left her in Grandmother’s custody under protective supervision. 2
A magistrate later recommended removing K.B. from Grandmother’s custody and committing her to the Department for out-of-home placement. 3
At the de novo exceptions hearing, the juvenile court excluded K.B. over counsel’s objection because it thought the testimony would be inappropriate for K.B. to hear. 4
The juvenile court ultimately removed K.B. from Grandmother’s custody, but later terminated the CINA proceedings and restored custody to Grandmother before oral argument. 5
The Appellate Court affirmed, holding the exclusion was within the juvenile court’s discretion. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the appeal moot, and did an exception apply? 7	K.B. said it was moot but fit public-importance and repetition exceptions.	Department said termination of the case left no live controversy.	Moot, but reviewed under the public-interest exception. 8
Did Rule 11-109 authorize excluding K.B.? 9	K.B. argued exclusion required good cause or waiver under Rule 11-109.	Department argued the rule allowed exclusion for good cause.	Rule 11-109 did not apply to exclude an already-present child. 10
Did exclusion violate procedural due process? 11	K.B. argued she had a due process right to attend and assist counsel.	Department argued the court considered her age, sensitivity of evidence, and best interests.	Yes; the court failed individualized findings, so exclusion was unconstitutional. 12

Wilson v. Tanglewood Venture, LP, 492 Md. 590 (Md. 2025) (mootness and public-importance exception standards 13)
In re Maria P., 393 Md. 661 (Md. 2006) (juvenile court must make record findings before excluding a parent from CINA proceedings 14)
Green v. N. Arundel Hosp. Ass'n, 366 Md. 597 (Md. 2001) (party’s presence may be excluded only in narrow circumstances after balancing interests 15)
Clarke v. Gibson, 492 Md. 557 (Md. 2025) (procedural due process review is de novo 16)
Trimble v. State, 491 Md. 378 (Md. 2025) (discretion must be exercised under correct legal standards 17)
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Watson, 317 Md. 178 (Md. 1989) (prejudice is presumed from wrongful exclusion of a party from trial 18)
In re Najasha B., 409 Md. 20 (Md. 2009) (recognizes a child’s rights as a party in CINA proceedings 19)
Town of Somerset v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Appeals, 245 Md. 52 (Md. 1966) (denial of confrontation can create presumed prejudice 20)