Opinion ID: 2087533
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Justin D.

Text: Justin first came to the attention of DSS in January, 1993, when the agency received a report that the child, then 10 years old, had been sexually abused by his 14-year-old brother, Imari, approximately a year earlier, in December, 1991. Justin reported the event to a school official, who, in turn, contacted DSS. Following an investigation, DSS devised a safety plan calling for Imari's temporary removal from the home, individual family counseling, and further monitoring. Imari returned home after three days and no further incidents of that nature were reported. Imari has consistently denied having abused his brother, and the allegation has never been independently confirmed, notwithstanding that in some subsequent psychiatric or social service reports, it seems to have been assumed. Indeed, the uncertainty surrounding the allegation has been one of the root problems in dealing with Justin. Justin's parents never accepted that the event described by Justin occurred, which, in part, contributed to depression and other disorders on Justin's part and to concern on the part of DSS, some of Justin's therapists, and the court as to the ability or willingness of the parents to deal with Justin's problems. A second incident occurred in March, 1993, when Justin, while at school, took an overdose of antibiotic medication. His father was called and was, at first, reluctant to go to the school, stating that Justin was simply having a pity party. He did go, however, and, while he and Justin were in the lavatory, the father slapped Justin, in the process scratching his face and causing Justin to bleed. There were no serious physical injuries, but Justin was taken to the hospital for evaluation and eventually placed, temporarily, with his adult half-sister, Danielle. On April 7, 1993, the juvenile court declared Justin a CINA, committed him to DSS with permission for him to return home under the general direction and guidance of DSS and subject to the conditions that the family participate in a counseling program under the direction of DSS and that Justin was not to have any unsupervised contact with Imari. Justin returned home that day. Psychiatric reports prepared on Justin and Imari showed that Justin was a morbidly or pre-morbidly obese child who was in a significant amount of emotional distress arising from his earlier complaint of sexual abuse, which no one seemed to believe. There was a substantial degree of sibling rivalry between Justin and Imari. In a dispositional order entered in June, 1993, the court continued the existing arrangement. By December, however, there was concern that Justin's emotional problems were not being adequately addressed. He had been truant from school 75% of the time; he had continued to gain weightat 11 years of age, he weighed 200 pounds; he had trouble sleeping; and the parents had not fully cooperated with recommended therapy. Due to the difficulty in motivating the ... family to implement behavioral changes which would reduce the risk of further abuse towards Justin and attend to the significant issues regarding his health and education, DSS recommended a comprehensive evaluation by the Regional Institute for Children and Adolescents (RICA). On December 1, the court ordered that Justin be removed from the home and sent to RICA for evaluation. The child was returned to his parents on March 23, 1994, under a joint commitment to DSS, the Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene, and the Montgomery County Public Schools, with a continued placement in the RICA day program. A year later, due largely to his continued truancy, obesity, and borderline hypertension, the court, on recommendation of RICA, continued the commitment to DSS but ordered placement at a RICA residential unit and directed the parents to cooperate with RICA. There was considerable concern about his obesity; Justin had gained 35 pounds and, at age 12½ was five feet tall and weighed 243 pounds. He was diagnosed as having major depression, an eating disorder, obesity, and borderline hypertension. Justin remained at RICA for 20 months, eventually with weekend passes at home. During that period, his half-sister, Danielle,attended every family therapy session and served as significant support. The parents, on the other hand, though maintaining consistent telephone contact with Justin and his therapist, frequently canceled or showed up late for therapy sessions; the mother missed two out of the four sessions, and, although the father attended three, he was 20 minutes late for each of them. In August, 1995, Justin's other half-sister, Andrea, expressed concern that Justin was unsafe in his parents' home due to their use of illegal substances. Those allegations were supported by Justin. As a result, the court, in August, 1995, limited the parents' contact to supervised visitation at RICA but permitted weekend visits with Danielle. The court noted that the continued placement was made despite reasonable efforts having been made to have said child [returned to his] home. Following that order, Justin's father ceased visits altogether. Eventually, the parents separated, and the mother, it appears, moved in with Danielle. The mother made an effort to be more available to Justin but continued either to cancel visits or arrive late for them. A progress report in November indicated that Justin was angry and disappointed about her inconsistency and remained doubtful that she will ever be a reliable and reassuring figure in his life. The mother began substance abuse treatment in September but discontinued it in early October, giving as a reason her impending move from Danielle's home into a home of her own. The therapist also expressed concern about the mother's intent to bring Imari into her home. Imari was also a chronic truant who had recently been arrested for stealing a car. In November, 1996, the court continued the commitment to DSS and the Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene, designated Danielle as his primary guardian, and provided for placement in her home. This was based, in part, we assume on the therapist's note that Danielle had been an enormous support to Justin throughout his residential treatment. The court noted in its order that Justin's parents will not solve issues of imminent danger and [Justin] continues to need the services of the Court. As a condition of the placement, the court ordered that Justin was to have no contact whatsoever with the homes of father or mother. A DSS status report prepared in anticipation of a review hearing in May, 1997 showed that Justin had progressed well in his sister's care, that the father essentially had disappeared, that the mother was inconsistent in attending family therapy, and that Justin remained very angry and confused about his parents' lack of participation in his treatment. DSS recommended a continuation of the existing arrangement but noted that its permanency plan for Justin was long term foster care relative placement with his sister. The RICA staff concurred in the DSS recommendation that the existing arrangement be continued. It added that Justin should continue to have only supervised visits with his parents and that [the parents] be required to participate in Family Therapy as a condition of visitation. With these recommendations, the court, in May, 1997, continued the existing arrangement. The order stated, in relevant part, that Justin was to remain with Danielle under the jurisdiction of the court and the supervision of DSS. Visitation with the parents was to be under the direction of DSS and Danielle. A similar order was entered in May, 1998, as well. A DSS status report noted that Danielle was the only consistent family member in [Justin's] life and that Justin remained very frustrated regarding his parents' lack of involvement in his treatment at RICA. A court-appointed special advocate for Justin concurred in RICA's recommendation that the existing arrangement be continued. The court order directed that the parents participate in family counseling at RICA, that there were to be no overnight visits without Danielle's permission, and that all visits with the parents were to be under the direction of DSS. The event that spawned this appeal was the review hearing held in January, 1999. A status report prepared by RICA confirmed Justin's progress and contained the same recommendations made earliercontinued commitment to DSS, placement with Danielle, only supervised visits with the parents and no overnight visits. DSS concurred but recommended that Justin, then 16, participate in an independent living program, to plan for the time when he will live independently. At the review hearing, the mother, apparently for the first time, objected to the condition that there be no overnight visits and to the requirement that visitation be under the direction of DSS. Through counsel, she noted that Justin was 16 and urged that there was no danger to him from unsupervised overnight visits. She pointed out that, as Imari was then incarcerated, he was not in the home. She also stated that she agreed to go to monthly therapy as best she can, considering her current health problems, which were unspecified. Counsel argued that the mother ought to have the opportunity to question the Department when it makes decisions about overnights, and that, if DSS decided not to allow overnight visitation, to have the court listen to the facts and make the decision. Citing Shapiro v. Shapiro, 54 Md.App. 477, 458 A.2d 1257, cert. denied, 296 Md. 655 (1983), she contended that the court needed to decide whether there will be overnight visitation and that it could not delegate that decision to DSS. She asked that the court allow overnight visitation and not have it under the direction of DSS. The court found Shapiro distinguishable in that it did not involve a CINA but was instead a battle between two parents. It noted the concern raised by the mother, however, and attempted to address it. It advised the mother, through her attorney, that, if she felt that DSS was withholding visitation improperly, she should first attempt to resolve the dispute with the Department and Justin's attorney. If the problem was with the particular social worker, the mother could go to the supervisory level or to the county attorney, and, if that failed to resolve the problem, the court would resolve it. It said, if I think the Department's being not just injudicious but somehow irrational about it, I wouldn't hesitate to enter the appropriate order. After considering the various recommendations before it, only one of whichthe one dealing with visitation was objected to, the court entered an order continuing its jurisdiction, the commitment to DSS, and Justin's placement with Danielle, and, as it had consistently in the past, provided that [v]isitation between Justin and his mother to be under the direction of [DSS]. As before, the parents were ordered to participate in family counseling at RICA. The mother's appeal is from that order. At oral argument, we were advised that, in July, 1999, following a regularly scheduled review hearing, the court entered a similar order, from which no appeal was taken.