215 A.3d 392
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2019Background
- In Nov 2016 Worcester County DSS (WCDSS) removed 2‑year‑old R.S. from her mother and filed a CINA petition; mother’s neglect allegations were sustained. Father (T.S.), a Delaware resident, was later found to be the biological father.
- Father completed evaluations, attended visits, maintained housing and employment, and by disposition had unsupervised overnight visits and an established bond with R.S.
- WCDSS ordered an ICPC homestudy for placement with father or paternal grandparents in Delaware; a Delaware social worker denied father as a placement and approved the grandparents.
- The juvenile court relied on the negative ICPC assessment and treated the grandparents as the primary placement, never making a judicial finding that father was unfit.
- On appeal, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals held the ICPC does not apply to out‑of‑state placements with biological parents, invalidated the AAICPC regulation insofar as it expanded ICPC coverage, vacated the juvenile court’s disposition and joint custody order, and remanded for a hearing to determine father’s custody preference and, if he does not want joint custody, to award him sole custody under CJ § 3‑819(e).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (R.S.) | Defendant's Argument (WCDSS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the ICPC apply to an out‑of‑state placement with a biological parent? | ICPC applies only to “placement in foster care or as preliminary to a possible adoption,” so it does not cover placements with a natural parent. | ICPC (and AAICPC Regulation No. 3) can and should govern interstate parental placements to ensure receiving‑state checks. | Held: ICPC does not apply to parental placements; placement with a parent is neither foster care nor preadoptive placement. |
| Are AAICPC/administrative regulations expanding ICPC to parental placements valid? | Regulations cannot override the statutory, plain language limits of the ICPC. | Regulation No. 3 authorizes ICPC home studies for parental placements when the parent is not making the placement. | Held: Regulations purporting to broaden ICPC to include parental placements are invalid to the extent they conflict with the statute. |
| Can an ICPC homestudy denial alone bar a fit parent from custody without a judicial finding of unfitness? | R.S. argues due‑process and parental fundamental rights require a court finding of parental unfitness before denying custody; an administrative denial cannot be dispositive. | WCDSS contends the ICPC provides the receiving‑state assessment necessary to protect the child and courts may rely on it. | Held: Relying solely on an ICPC denial to deny a fit parent custody is unconstitutional; courts must make judicial determinations based on evidence before denying parental custody. |
| Remedy where ICPC was misapplied and court never found father unfit | Vacate orders influenced by the misapplied ICPC; grant father sole custody under CJ § 3‑819(e). | Urges affirmation of custody arrangement (joint custody) or that appeal is moot/waived. | Held: Vacated the disposition and final custody orders; remanded for hearing to determine father’s present custody preference and, if he does not seek joint custody, to grant him sole custody. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption No. 10087 in Cir. Ct. for Montgomery Cnty., 324 Md. 394 (1991) (describing interstate compacts and purpose of ICPC)
- In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551 (2003) (noting foster care is placement out of biological parents’ homes; preference for parental placement)
- In re E.R., 239 Md. App. 334 (2018) (requirements for CINA pleading and consideration of noncustodial parent)
- In re C.B., 188 Cal. App. 4th 1024 (2010) (concluding ICPC does not apply to parental placements)
- McComb v. Wambaugh, 934 F.2d 474 (3d Cir. 1991) (invalidating an AAICPC regulation that expanded ICPC coverage beyond statutory limits)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognizing parents’ fundamental right to make childrearing decisions)