Court Opinion

ID: 9751199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:12:47.629881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:38.255837
License: Public Domain

WILNER, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result reached by the majority, but I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the requirement of § 5-319(b) of the Family Law Article that notice of a child’s status be given to the child’s birth parent, either alone or in conjunction with Article 27A, § 4, providing public defender representation for birth parents in hearings conducted under § 5-319, was ever intended to give the birth parent the status of a party in a § 5-319 hearing.
This very case demonstrates the harmful effect of the Court’s approach. In April, 1993, the Department of Social Services filed petitions to terminate the parental rights of Clemy and Sam P. with respect to their children, Stephon and Alphonso. Stephon had first been committed to DSS in August, 1990, when he was a year old, and had been in foster care since September, 1991. He was found to be a child in need of assistance in October, 1991. His brother, Alphonso, was committed to DSS át birth and also had been in foster care since September, 1991. Sam P., the father, affirmatively consented to the petition; Clemy simply ignored it. Without objection, the court granted the DSS petition as to both children on October 20,1993—nearly six years ago. Notwithstanding her failure to participate in the proceeding leading to *607the termination of her parental rights, which she had every opportunity to do, Clemy P. continued to litigate. She filed an untimely appeal, which was dismissed, and, in 1994, sought to intervene in a proceeding instituted on behalf of the children under § 5-319. She succeeded in convincing a judge, in December, 1995, to strike the then two-year old judgment terminating her parental rights, thereby placing the children back in limbo. On January 16, 1997, we reversed that order, holding that, by failing to object to the DSS petition, Clemy effectively consented to the petition and that, by virtue of §§ 5-317 and 5-322 of the Family Law Article, that consent was binding on her and could not be revoked. In Re Adoption No. 93321055, 344 Md. 458, 687 A.2d 681 (1997).
We noted in our opinion that, if an adoption placement is not made within nine months after entry of the guardianship judgment, if a placement within that period has been disrupted, or if an adoption does not take place within two years, § 5-319 of the Family Law Article requires that DSS (1) file a report and (2) send notice of the child(ren)’s status to the birth parents. That statute, § 5—319(f), also requires the court, on receipt of the guardian’s report and every 12 months thereafter, to hold a hearing to review the progress that has been made toward the child’s adoption “and to review whether the child’s current placement and circumstances are in the child’s best interest.” Following such a hearing, the court is empowered to “take whatever action the court considers appropriate in the child’s best interest.”
It may well be, as the majority supposes, that some birth parents are willing to allow, through affirmative consent or failure to object, a termination of their parental rights on the assumption that DSS will arrange for a permanent placement within a relatively short period of time, and that, if such a placement is not so made, they will want to resume a parental status. We recognized that prospect in the earlier appeal and thus left open the issue, which was not then before us, of whether § 5—319(f) would allow a court to reopen or vacate an enrolled judgment of guardianship in such a situation.
*608I believe that the majority has stretched § 5—319(f) well beyond its intended reach. The requirements of that section need to be viewed in context. The clear and overarching intent of the General Assembly, following, in part, Federal mandates, was to assure that children like Stephon and Alphonso not remain in limbo—that once the decision has been made to terminate the parental rights of their birth parents, DSS move promptly to arrange a permanent and appropriate alternative placement for them. Section 5-319 provides for necessary court supervision over that effort. If appropriate arrangements are not in place within the specified time, DSS must report to the court and explain the circumstances, and the court must then determine whether the existing arrangement remains in the ehild(ren)’s best interest. The required notice to the birth parents, unless they have waived it, is simply part of that process.
It is clear to me that once a birth parent’s parental rights are validly terminated, as Clemy P.’s rights were, that parent is a legal stranger to the child and has no greater rights with respect to the child than anyone else in the world. That, indeed, is the whole point of the termination proceeding—to divorce the parent from the child. The finality of that order is why the Legislature, and this Court through its rules, have taken such pains to assure that parents are provided fair and detailed notice, representation by counsel, and every opportunity to oppose the DSS petition and make their position known.
I would answer the issue reserved in the earlier appeal that § 5-319 does not permit a court to vacate an enrolled judgment terminating parental rights. To allow even the possibility of that is to inject uncertainty and non-finality into a judgment that, in the world of judgments, most cries out for certainty and finality. On the other hand, I think that § 5-319 does permit a court to consider reuniting the child(ren) with the parent if it concludes that such reunification is in the child(ren)’s best interest. That does not require vacating the termination judgment, however, and is not a special right or privilege of the parent. The court, in a proceeding under § 5-*609319, is entitled to consider a variety of arrangements, including placing the child with a birth parent, an adult sibling or other relative, with another acceptable caretaker or intervening foster parent, or any other person who may, at the time and under the circumstances, have an interest in assuming responsibility for the child. The court may modify the conditions of the guardianship over which it retains a continuing jurisdiction, even to the point of permitting a reinvolvement of a birth parent, but it may not vacate the termination judgment in order to achieve that result. To the extent that any such prospect is driving the Court’s finding of party status, it is, in my view, a wholly unacceptable rationale, one that is likely to cause great mischief.
The purpose of providing notice to the birth parent, it seems to me, is simply to allow the parent to be informed of the existing situation, in order to permit the parent to petition to intervene. The right to notice, however, in my view, is limited to that. The court may consider the petition under Maryland Rule 2-214(b) and decide (1) whether the petitioner has a sufficient interest to be allowed to participate, and (2) whether allowing the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice adjudication of the rights of the original parties. The provision in Article 27A is not inconsistent with that limited right. I expect, quite frankly, that its retention in the law after 1987 may well have been a legislative oversight, but even if that is not the case, I do not believe that it does any more than afford the birth parent assistance in seeking intervention and, if the petition is granted, representation at the hearing.
I agree with the result reached by the majority in this case because I believe that, by granting Clemy’s petition for hearing and allowing her to participate, the court effectively allowed her to intervene in the proceeding, and, having done that, it abused its discretion in not permitting her to participate fully as an intervener. Once she was allowed to intervene, she was effectively a party to the proceeding and had the rights of a party, including the right to testify, present witnesses, and make argument.
*610The danger in the majority’s conclusion is not in this case, which has been boluxed up through other rulings. By giving statutory party status to Clemy’s position, it places in jeopardy the finality of every termination judgment. I hope that the General Assembly will address the problem promptly and make its desires clear.
Judges RODOWSKY and CHASANOW have authorized me to state that they join in this concurring opinion.