Opinion ID: 2328932
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Testimony at the Hearing

Text: The guardian ad litem advised the court and other parties in her opening statement that, because of the ages of the children, we will not be asking their testimony today or their opinion as to what they feel is in their best interest, [but] we will have testimony from social workers and clinical psychologists as to what is in the best interest of the children. Counsel for appellant made no objection. Andrea Pinnow, a social worker, was qualified as an expert in the field of family relations and assisting reunification of natural families. She provided most of the testimony about the general background of the case which we have already summarized. She also recounted her efforts over the years to help appellant become reunited with her children by obtaining a permanent residence, steady employment, and counseling. Unfortunately, none of these efforts met with much success. Ms. Pinnow said: She did make some effort to attend therapy, but she would attend a couple of times and then drop out of it. And then... if I worked with her and convinced her ... that it was necessary, she might attend a few more times and then drop out of it for six months. She continued to move frequently and not be truthful about where she was living, and ... she said she was earning thousands of dollars... by performing concerts [as a gospel singer], but it was never verified that she did or that she had an ongoing source of income. Ms. Pinnow also testified about her relations with appellant and her observations of appellant's interactions with I.B. and S.B. She described appellant's contacts with her and other social workers as dramatically unstable, changing unpredictably from being cooperative to being extremely difficult and threatening. [8] Appellant's interactions with I.B. and S.B. were similarly erratic: It really depends on what her frame of mind is. Sometimes she can be very good with the children ... but then it can switch ... almost immediately, where she would get angry and become threatening. In addition, Ms. Pinnow recounted several instances of appellant's inappropriate behavior, such as telling the boys that their foster father wanted to sodomize them, saying that the reason they were not allowed to stay with her was that she was being penalized for refusing to have sex with a DHS staff member, and reporting to the police that the foster parents were using drugs and sexually abusing the boys. As for the children's feelings about their relationship with their mother, Ms. Pinnow testified that the children looked forward to her visits, but often found them stressful and embarrassing: Well, the boys really ... wanted her approval, and ... it was difficult for them to stand up to her, so they would... try to ignore her or get away from her.... [N]ow they're starting to tell her ... no, that's not true, those things didn't happen. ... I know the boys do want to see her, but I think it's also hard on them because her behavior is so unpredictable; and, you know, they feel loyalty towards her, but then they know ... that they must tell the truth, that they can't lie.... It's just confusing for them. Ms. Pinnow concluded that it would be in [the boys'] best interest to be adopted by their foster parents, who are also relatives. Beth Holland, another social worker, testified that she was assigned to work with I.B. and S.B.'s foster parents in 1988. Her job involved visiting the children in the foster home each month and supervising appellant's visits with them at DHS. She also recounted several incidents of inappropriate conduct during those visits, such as assaulting DHS personnel, threatening Ms. Holland's life and calling her names, being verbally abusive, criticizing the care provided by the foster parents in front of the boys, and criticizing the children excessively about their physical appearance. Ms. Holland estimated that about 50 percent of the time appellant's interactions [with the children] were inappropriate. She also testified that the behavior and educational performance of the children had improved significantly since they had been under the care of their current foster parents. S.B. is no longer classified as socially and emotionally disturbed but is now mainstreamed, and I.B. has become just about a straight A student at this point. Marcia Gustafson, a psychologist employed by the public schools of Montgomery County, Maryland, and by a private psychological assessment service in the District of Columbia, was accepted by the court as an expert in the field of assessment psychology. Ms. Gustafson, who was retained to assess appellant's parenting skills and psychological condition, concluded that appellant suffered from a histrionic personality disorder [9] and testified at length about the problems that can arise when a person afflicted with this disorder interacts with children. For example, Ms. Gustafson said that as a result of appellant's self-centeredness, her interpersonal relationships tend to be very inconsistent, ungratifying, stormy. This, I think, has been seen in her history with her children, where she can heap love on them in one moment and then in another moment behave in very inappropriate ways and not care for their needs. She concluded that, although clearly love and affection and a bond existed between appellant and her children, appellant had a pattern of personality traits that was difficult to change. In particular, she lacked the parenting skills and emotional stability which she needed to provide a stable mother-child relationship. Accordingly, Ms. Gustafson recommended that appellant take parenting classes [and] that she become involved in psychotherapy.... Concerning the two boys, Ms. Gustafson testified that they both had very positive feelings about their placement with their current foster parents. She also described at length what she characterized as their mixed feelings about their mother. She said that I.B. had told her that he wished he could live with his mother, but that he considered his foster parents his family and that they were the greatest people [he] knew.... Ms. Gustafson's assessment of S.B. was that he was particularly uncomfortable with the turmoil in his relationship with his mother because his coping skills were less well developed than his older brother's. C.L., the foster mother, is a public school teacher. At the time of the hearing she had been married eleven years and had a ten-year-old daughter. She testified that the two boys had lived with her family continuously since December 1988 and commented on the numerous positive changes in their personalities and academic performance since that time. For example, S.B. was unable to read or write when he began living with the L. family, but had mastered both skills since that time. C.L. also testified extensively about her relations with appellant over the years and told the court that she would like to adopt both boys. Finally, C.L. related what she knew about the children's feelings on the possibility of being reunited with their mother. She said that the children had expressed their love for their mother and a desire to live with her if she could change her ways, but if she could not, they would prefer to remain with the L. family. Appellant's presentation consisted solely of her own testimony. She acknowledged that she had agreed to take certain steps in order to demonstrate to the court her fitness to resume custody of the children. Tellingly, she said that she did not understand why the children had been removed from her care. On the subject of the children's feelings about residing with their foster parents, appellant's testimony was contradictory. She said that the boys were expressing their discomfort with where they are, but in the very next sentence she said that they were happy in the foster parents' home. At the very end of the hearing, after the testimony had been completed and the parties had made their closing statements, appellant asked the court to subpoena the children and represented that both of them had said that they wanted to be at home with her. The court took no action on this request, but simply excused the parties and took the case under advisement.