In re: M.C., 226 A.3d 400

Background

On June 10, 2019 the juvenile court adjudicated M.C. a CINA under an agreed dispositional order: Mother was awarded unsupervised, once-weekly visits "so long as [Mother] tests negative for illicit substances on an ongoing random basis."
On July 26, 2019 the Montgomery County Department of Social Services moved to amend the disposition to require supervised visits, alleging protective-order violations, missed urinalyses, and one positive cocaine test; its motion relied on an unsworn social-worker memo and an attached police report but did not include lab results.
Mother opposed the motion, requested discovery and a contested hearing, and proffered testimony disputing the Department’s allegations (including claims about testing accuracy and ongoing sobriety and treatment).
On August 15, 2019 the juvenile court granted the Department’s motion without a hearing and changed Mother’s visits to supervised; Mother timely appealed.
The Court of Special Appeals declined to dismiss the appeal as moot under the recurring-public-concern/evading-review exception and reached the merits.
The appellate court held the juvenile court abused its discretion and violated Mother’s due process rights by modifying visitation without a hearing because the disputed allegations were material to the child’s safety; it reversed the August 15 order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether juvenile court abused its discretion and denied due process by changing visitation without a hearing	Mother: the agreed order granted unsupervised visits unless she failed drug tests; disputed allegations required a contested hearing to resolve material facts	Department: once it alleged noncompliance, burden shifted to Mother; court may modify orders in child’s best interest and may do so without a hearing under Rule 11-116(c)	Court reversed: Department bore burden to change the status quo; where allegations material to child’s safety were disputed and Mother requested witnesses, the court abused its discretion by denying a hearing and violated due process
Whether the appeal was moot	Mother: appeal raises important due-process questions and would evade review because juvenile orders are often superseded before appellate review	Department: order was superseded, so appeal is technically moot	Court exercised discretion to decide the appeal under the recurring-public-concern/evading-review exception and proceeded to the merits
Proper interpretation of the June 10, 2019 dispositional order	Mother: plain meaning granted unsupervised visits conditioned on negative tests	Department: order placed parents on equal footing; Mother needed to establish a track record of negative tests before unsupervised visits	Court: language was clear and unambiguous — Mother was entitled to unsupervised visits unless she failed tests or the court validly changed the order

Key Cases Cited

Office of the Pub. Def. v. State, 413 Md. 411 (recurring-public-concern exception permits review of otherwise moot juvenile orders)
In re Justin D., 357 Md. 431 (orders in CINA cases are often superseded before appellate review; supports evasion-of-review analysis)
In re Ashley S., 431 Md. 678 (recognizes perverse effect of foreclosing appellate review when juvenile orders change quickly)
In re Damien F., 182 Md. App. 546 (trial court must receive testimony on material, disputed allegations when parent requests witnesses)
In re Maria P., 393 Md. 661 (due process requires bothering parents before excluding or limiting participation absent proper findings)
Taylor v. Mandel, 402 Md. 109 (court orders construed like contracts; clear language given plain meaning)
In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551 (standards of appellate review in CINA cases)
LaValle v. LaValle, 432 Md. 343 (mootness doctrine and its limits)