Opinion ID: 2555033
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cases Cited By Mr. B

Text: To support his argument that the juvenile court's decision was based upon the length of time Cadence had been in the Z.'s care, and nothing else, Mr. B. relies on our decisions in In re Adoption/Guardianship of Alonza D., Jr. and Shaydon S., 412 Md. 442, 987 A.2d 536 (2010) and McDermott v. Dougherty, 385 Md. 320, 869 A.2d 751 (2005). In Alonza, 412 Md. at 452-53, 987 A.2d at 542, the juvenile court terminated a father's parental rights, even after finding him to be a fit parent, because the children had spent six yearsa majority of their liveswith their foster family. When the children were no more than two years old, the Department had removed them from their mother's custody following reports of neglect, and it would not place the children with their father because the home in which he resided contained dangerous levels of lead. See id. at 444, 987 A.2d at 537. The juvenile court criticized the father for his failure to timely remedy his housing situation so that the children could be returned to him. See id. at 452, 987 A.2d at 542. Yet, it also recognized that the father had acquired appropriate housing and had satisfied other Department requests by the time of the hearing. See id. The court simply considered these efforts to be too late: [T]he Court finds that it was really within [the father's] control ... to be able to take care of this. It was within his control to take the parenting classes to do what was required, to fix the housing to do what was required.... And what is of concern to the Court as far as length of time was that it was so much within his control to take care of this. [H]e took care of things, but he took care of them late.... There's a clock ticking and ... it was almost as though [the father] sort of woke up at some point and said he was going to take care of this, but in the meantime, these children have been living with [their foster mother] for a long time. Alonza, 412 Md. at 452-53, 987 A.2d at 542. We vacated the juvenile court's decision, explaining that the court incorrectly focused primarily on the length of time [the children] had been in foster care and the apparent bond that had developed between [the foster mother] and the children without making any findings as to how a continued parental relationship would have caused a detriment to the children[.] Alonza, 412 Md. at 468, 987 A.2d at 551. Similarly, in McDermott, the circuit court awarded custody of the son to the maternal grandparents because the father's career as a merchant marine required him to spend months away at sea, resulting in what the court considered to be an unstable living situation that was contrary to the best interests of the child. McDermott, 385 Md. at 324, 869 A.2d at 753. The circuit court did not find the father to be an unfit parent, but found his relationship with [the son] to be wanting [because of] his absences from the child's life while at sea. Id. at 419, 869 A.2d at 809. We reversed, holding that under circumstances in which there is no finding of parental unfitness, the requirements of a parent's employment, such that he is required to be away at sea, or otherwise appropriately absent from the State for a period of time, and for which time he or she made appropriate arrangements for the care of the child, do not constitute `extraordinary or exceptional circumstances' to support the awarding of custody to a third party. Id. at 325-26, 869 A.2d at 754. In relying on Alonza and McDermott, Mr. B. ignores a glaring distinction between those parents and himself, and misses the mark as to the juvenile court's rationale in this case. Here, Mr. B. made the choice to absent himself from Cadence's life. He had been living in Maryland prior to his incarceration, yet he moved into a home in Pennsylvania upon his release despite his family, other five children, and Cadence being in Charles County, Maryland. The father in Alonza, on the other hand, had already been living in a home plagued with lead and could only correct the situation by moving to a new home or paying for lead abatement, a costly procedure. Even so, by the time of the hearing in Alonza, the father had taken care of his living situation by moving into a suitable home in Maryland so that his children could immediately join him. Id. at 452, 987 A.2d at 542. Moreover, in this case, even though the Department ha[d] worked with Mr. B. to the extent [it had] been able to with him living in Pennsylvania ... even giving him gas vouchers[,] Mr. B. visited Cadence only 18 out of 561 days, visits that never lasted longer than four hours. Put another way, Mr. B. spent, at most, 72 hours with his daughter over this year and a half period. This means that on 62 weekends, out of roughly 80, Mr. B. decided not to travel to Charles County to see Cadence. Indeed, the juvenile court found that Mr. B's choice to absent himself from being available for meaningful, more frequent contact with Cadence ha[d] been the biggest impediment to reunification. In contrast, the juvenile court in Alonza found that [t]he visitation that [had] been provided by the Department appear[ed] to have been taken up readily by both parents, there [hadn't] been any hesitation on their part. Alonza, 412 Md. at 448, 987 A.2d at 539-40. The father in McDermott was equally proactive, even flying his son and his son's maternal grandparents to Texas ... to spend a week aboard [the] ship [where he was stationed] to celebrate [his son's] birthday. McDermott, 385 Md. at 329 n. 6, 869 A.2d at 756 n. 6.