Opinion ID: 2556516
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Juvenile Court's Role In Establishing And Monitoring A Child's Permanency Plan

Text: In CINA cases where a child had been removed from the family home, a juvenile court is required to periodically conduct a permanency planning hearing to determine the permanency plan for a child[.] Md. Code (1974, 2006 Repl.Vol., 2009 Supp.), § 3-823(b) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings (CJP) Article. Thereafter, the court must review the child's permanency plan at least every 6 months until commitment is rescinded. . . . CJP § 3-823(h)(1)(iii). As we stated in Yve S., The permanency plan is an integral part of the statutory scheme designed to expedite the movement of Maryland's children from foster care to a permanent living, and hopefully, family arrangement. . . . Services to be provided by the local social service department and commitments that must be made by the parents and children are determined by the permanency plan. 373 Md. at 581, 819 A.2d at 1048 ( quoting In re Damon M., 362 Md. 429, 430-31 n. 1, 765 A.2d 624, 624 n. 1 (2001)). It is the court's responsibility [to] determin[e] the permanency plan, . . . and [to] justify[] the placement of children in out of home placements for a specified period or on a long-term or permanent basis. . . . Id. at 577, 819 A.2d at 1046. At the hearing, the court must consider the following factors: (i) the child's ability to be safe and healthy in the home of the child's parent; (ii) the child's attachment and emotional ties to the child's natural parents and siblings; (iii) the child's emotional attachment to the child's current caregiver and the caregiver's family; (iv) the length of time the child has resided with the current caregiver; (v) the potential emotional, developmental, and educational harm to the child if moved from the child's current placement; and (vi) the potential harm to the child by remaining in State custody for an excessive period of time. Md.Code (1999, 2006 Repl.Vol., 2009 Supp.), § 5-525(f)(1) of the Family Law (FL) Article. Moreover, at the hearing, the court shall: (i) Determine the continuing necessity for and appropriateness of the commitment; (ii) Determine and document in its order whether reasonable efforts have been made to finalize the permanency plan that is in effect; (iii) Determine the extent of progress that has been made toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating commitment; (iv) Project a reasonable date by which a child in placement may be returned home, placed in a preadoptive home, or placed under a legal guardianship; (v) Evaluate the safety of the child and take necessary measures to protect the child; and (vi) Change the permanency plan if a change in the permanency plan would be in the child's best interest. CJP § 3-828(h)(2) (emphasis added). See also FL § 5-525(e)(1) (The Department shall make reasonable efforts . . . to preserve and reunify families[.]). The statute, however, must be interpreted and applied in light of the constitutional rights of parents. This is because we have recognized that parents have a fundamental, Constitutionally-based right to raise their children free from undue and unwarranted interference on the part of the State, including its courts. In re Adoption/Guardianship of Rashawn H. and Tyrese H., 402 Md. 477, 495, 937 A.2d 177, 188 (2007). As Judge Wilner explained in Rashawn, when the fundamental rights of parents are involved, . . . we have not discarded the best interest of the child standard, but rather have harmonized it with that fundamental right. We have created that harmony by recognizing a substantive presumption a presumption of law and factthat it is in the best interest of children to remain in the care and custody of their parents. The parental right is not absolute, however. The presumption that protects it may be rebutted upon a showing either that the parent is unfit or that exceptional circumstances exist which would make continued custody with the parent detrimental to the best interest of the child. Id. Thus, this Court has often recognized that, absent compelling circumstances to the contrary, the plan should be to work towards reunification as it is presumed that it is in the best interest of the children to remain in the care and custody of their [biological] parent[]. Id. at 495, 937 A.2d at 188. Nevertheless, that course must be consistent with the best interests of the child[.] CJP § 3-823(e)(1)(i). In other words, where the fundamental right of parents to raise their children stands in the starkest contrast to the State's effort to protect those children from unacceptable neglect or abuse, the best interest of the child remains the ultimate governing standard. Rashawn, 402 Md. at 495, 937 A.2d at 188. Additionally, where, as here, there is a proven history of abuse or neglect, the proper issue before the hearing judge [is] whether there was sufficient evidence that further abuse or neglect [is] unlikely. Yve S., 373 Md. at 593, 819 A.2d at 1055. See also FL § 9-101(b) (Unless the court specifically finds that there is no likelihood of further child abuse or neglect by [the parent], the court shall deny custody or visitation rights to that party[.]). The burden of proof rests upon the parent to show that the past neglect or abuse will not be repeated. See Yve S., 373 Md. at 587, 819 A.2d at 1052 (The burden is on the parent previously having been found to have abused or neglected his or her child to adduce evidence and persuade the court to make the requisite finding under [Section] 9-101(b).). Yet, even upon substantial evidence of past abuse or neglect, [Section 9-101] does not require a finding that future abuse or neglect is impossible or will, in fact, never occur, but only that there is no likelihood  no probability  of its recurrence. In re Adoption No. 12612, 353 Md. 209, 238, 725 A.2d 1037, 1051 (1999).