Title: In Re: Prince S.

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

Circuit Court for Montgomery County
Case No.  29517401
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
No.  155
September Term, 1998
______________________________________
IN RE: PRINCE S.
______________________________________
Bell, C.J.
Eldridge
Rodowsky
Raker
Wilner
Cathell
Karwacki, Robert L. (retired,
         (specially assigned),
   JJ.
______________________________________
PER CURIAM
______________________________________
Filed:   July 30, 1999
In 1995, Prince S. was found by the Juvenile Court in Montgomery County to be a
child in need of assistance.  The court placed Prince under the protective supervision of the
Department of Social Services, later renamed the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS), but directed that his physical custody was to remain with his mother.  That situation
was confirmed by the court, after review hearings, in December, 1995, and in February,
April, and July, 1998.
On August 6, 1998, HHS filed a request for “Statutory Emergency Hearing” seeking
an immediate change of placement to a more restrictive environment.  Such a hearing was
held five days later, at which, through counsel, Prince, his mother, and HSS were present.
 The basis of the request, as explained by the HHS social worker, was a report she received
on July 27 about a series of incidents in which Prince, who was then 10 years old, had been
“bullying” younger children in the neighborhood, causing a great deal of resentment and the
involvement of the police.  It was not clear whether Prince instigated the encounters or, as
asserted by his mother, he was reacting to provocations from the other children.  The social
worker, who had no personal knowledge of the episodes, seemed concerned only about the
child’s safety and the ability of the mother to deal with the immediate problem.  She
recommended placement in a group home.  The home she had in mind was not available for
another three days, however, and the social worker said that she would have no objection to
the child staying with a particular relative in the meanwhile, although, because the
department had not been able to do the required background check on the relative, she could
not formally recommend such a placement, even temporarily.
-2-
Counsel for Prince noted that the child, who was personally present in the courtroom,
had some scars on him at that time, including some fresh wounds, but averred that the child
wanted to stay with his mother, “despite the fact that he’s getting beaten up all the time.”
Counsel for the mother agreed that HHS “has valid concerns about Prince having problems
in the neighborhood” but indicated doubt whether he was the aggressor or the victim.  She
wanted a full evidentiary hearing to determine that issue.  The mother, she said, was willing
to let the child stay with relatives but objected to a group home.  Her plan to provide
protection for Prince was to keep him in the house more.  Counsel’s point was that it was
inappropriate to put Prince in a group home because of problems in the neighborhood.
The court, without assigning fault, noted everyone’s agreement that the child was in
some danger and declared that keeping the child in the house was not the answer.  The court
directed that Prince stay with the designated relatives until the group home became available
and ordered HHS to make an investigation of the circumstances in the neighborhood.  It
noted that there was another review hearing scheduled for October 22 — nine weeks hence
— but that “[i]f we can resolve things and get him back in the home safely before that time
I’d take it as an emergency hearing if we have agreement.”  Counsel for the mother renewed
her request for a “shelter care” hearing to determine who was at fault for the problem in the
neighborhood.  She said that she had no opportunity to “cross-examine witnesses.”  The
court’s view, however, remained that the child was then in some danger and that the problem
could not be resolved by keeping him in the house.  It therefore signed an order continuing
the commitment to HHS but directing that Prince stay with the designated relatives pending
-3-
placement in the group home.
The mother promptly filed a motion for reconsideration, asking that the court
reconsider its order removing Prince from her custody and that it conduct a full hearing
“equivalent to an adjudicatory hearing” within 30 days.  She regarded the placement as being
in the nature of “shelter care” and urged that, under Maryland Code, § 3-815(d) of the Courts
and Judicial Proceedings Article, shelter care may not be continued for longer than 30 days
unless an adjudicatory or waiver hearing is held.  The emergency hearing, she averred, could
not itself constitute an adjudicatory hearing because it was not an evidentiary hearing.  When
the motion was denied, the mother filed two notices of appeal — one from the initial
emergency order and the other from the order denying the motion for reconsideration.
We granted certiorari on our own initiative, prior to proceedings in the Court of
Special Appeals, to consider the single issue, “[w]hen a child has been adjudicated a [child
in need of assistance], but continued in parental custody, can a court later remove the child
from the home on an emergency basis without providing an evidentiary hearing on the
removal within thirty days.”  We were not aware when we granted the writ, because the
mother neglected to disclose in her brief, that on January 21, 1999 — 12 days before the
brief was filed — the juvenile court, after another review hearing, returned Prince to the
custody of the mother.  The appeal, therefore, is utterly moot.  There is no effective relief
that this Court could provide to appellant, even if we were to agree with her position.  The
mother was seeking no more than an evidentiary hearing to determine whether custody
should be returned to her.  That hearing has been held and, as noted, custody has been
 We note from the transcript of the January 21, 1999 review hearing that a further review
1
hearing was anticipated 60 days thereafter.  We have no information as to whether such a hearing was
then held and, if so, whether there was any change in the custody arrangement.  This case was argued
on May 10, 1999.  It would certainly be helpful if counsel would keep abreast of the status of the case
so that this Court can act upon accurate and up-to-date information.  
-4-
returned to her.  The appeal, therefore, will be dismissed.1
APPEAL DISMISSED; APPELLANT TO PAY THE COSTS.