Opinion ID: 2087533
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Joshua R.

Text: Joshua and his two older brothers were declared CINA in February, 1989, when Joshua was only two. The basis for the finding was the disappearance of the children's father, their mother's continued drug use, and her inability to protect them from the drug activity that surrounds them. Evidence was presented that the mother used her available funds on drugs and left the children with no food or supervision. Joshua was committed to DSS and placed in foster care. The mother was given reasonable visitation under the direction of [DSS]. Similar orders were entered following periodic review hearings in 1990 and 1991. During that two-year period, Joshua resided in three different foster homes. That, coupled with the initial neglect, led to the development of serious emotional and behavioral problems. As early as September, 1989, he was extremely hyperactive and aggressive. Reunification was apparently considered in 1990 but was deferred because the mother was again pregnant the father being unknownand there was concern over her ability to care for Joshua. Although a DSS status report in July, 1991 found Joshua doing well with his then-current foster family, in September, 1991, it sought an emergency hearing and requested that Joshua be hospitalized because of his serious emotional and behavioral problems. On that petition, the court committed Joshua to the Walter P. Carter Center for treatment. In December, 1991, the court permitted Joshua to return to his mother's care. She had just completed a drug rehabilitation program. At some point in 1994, Joshua was transferred to the RICA school because of severe hyperactivity, aggressive behavior and an inability to learn in a regular classroom. Although DSS workers initially believed that Joshua's mother had overcome her dependence on drugs, they learned on September 14, 1994, that they were mistaken. A DSS worker arrived at the mother's home, at about 8:45 a.m., and found that Joshua, then age 7, and his 3-year-old brother had been left home alone overnight. Joshua reported that his mother had left the night before with a man. The house was in disarray. There was no food available for the children; dirty dishes and pans were in the sink; a bag of trash and empty beer bottles were on the floor; and a broken window, with jagged pieces of glass, was within the children's reach. The mother had resumed her substance abuse and eventually told the DSS worker that she left the children unattended because her judgment had been impaired from alcohol and cocaine. As a result of that episode, which was treated as a relapse, the court removed the children from the home and placed them in foster care. The court recommended that the mother enter long-term inpatient drug rehabilitation, which, it appears, she did. Weekly visitation was ordered, under the direction of DSS. The foster care and visitation arrangement was confirmed after review hearings in 1995, 1996, and 1997. In May, 1997, the court approved long-term foster care as the permanency plan and appointed a guardian for Joshua for educational and medical purposes. The guardianship apparently resulted from concern expressed by RICA that his mother was not giving Joshua his psychotropic medication during visits. In January, 1998, following Joshua's admission to University of Maryland Hospital due to his acting in an unsafe manner, the court placed the child in a group home. [1] Visitation under the direction of DSS was continued. In May, 1998, a RICA status report noted that [a] decision was made to stop overnight weekend visits because [the mother] was not giving medications as prescribed and not scheduling visits in a predictable manner. RICA recommended that Joshua continue in long-term foster care and continue to have visits with his mother as deemed appropriate by circumstances in the household and with input from [the mother] and Joshua. The court continued to allow visitation under the direction of [DSS]. In October, 1998, the court reaffirmed that arrangement but added to its order a statement that [m]other and the department are encouraged to work together regarding overnight visits. In a status report prepared in January, 1999, the group home noted that Joshua had recently been allowed to have overnight weekend visits with his motheran expansion from the 3hour Saturday visits he previously had. Joshua's therapist at RICA noted a problem with the increased visits, however, stemming from Joshua's desire to return home. A status report prepared by the RICA therapist stated that for Joshua increased contact with his mother seems to undermine his progress and success. Each time [the mother] pushes for reunification Joshua's progress gets disrupted and he becomes negative about his need for RICA or his medication. The therapist concluded that [t]here is no doubt that Joshua is attached to his mother and family and needs to remain in contact with them, but the frequency and duration of his contact will need continual monitoring to protect his needs. She advised that [r]egular, predictable weekend afternoon visits and a once a month overnight can be supported unless this schedule proves too disruptive for Joshua's success. DSS commended the mother for her continuing recovery from drug addiction and for maintaining employment. It noted that there had been two weekend visits that went well and that, being drug-free, the mother wanted Joshua returned. DSS reported, however, that it was the consensus of the treatment team that continued residence at the group home was necessary in order not to jeopardize the gains Joshua made during the year. These reports were considered at a review hearing in January, 1999. At the hearing, appellant expressed dissatisfaction with the recommendation that Joshua's overnight visits be limited to once a month. She stated, through counsel, that she had made progress working towards reunification with her son and that, in his recent overnight visits, she provided him with his medication and no unusual incidents were reported. Appellant told the court that she's frustrated by the fact that all of this progress has been made and the recommendations are to distance her from her son despite the progress. At that point, the court informed appellant that, contrary to her perception, it did not view the recommendations as restrictive. Nevertheless, for the first time, appellant voiced concern about leaving visits subject to the direction of the Department because under the direction leads to all kinds of restrictions that aren't discussed during the status, during the review hearing and occur without any input from the client making significant changes. She objected to just leaving it all up to the Department not even knowing what the Department would plan to do and just come in on ... a review at my request and who knows how many months that would be down the road. While the court agreed with appellant that greater visitation should occur, it was reluctant to set a specific schedule. It urged DSS to go along with a little bit more visitation and see if the end result produces anything negative in [Joshua] and if it does then scale it back, but it noted [t]hat's why I don't want to be ordering specific amounts of visitation. Because there's a dynamic that happens in every case that I just can't be there to observe and react to. And if I have a structured kind of visitation we can't adapt. With that, the court continued the existing arrangement, including the condition that visitation be under the direction of DSS. Joshua's mother appealed from that order. As in Justin's case, a new order, similar in character, was entered in July, 1999, following a scheduled review hearing.