Court Opinion

ID: 9693688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:57:07.077416+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:49.587910
License: Public Domain

BATTAGLIA, J.
This case arises out of an adjudicatory1 and disposition hearing2 held in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, sitting as a juvenile court, during which Blessen H. was declared a child in need of assistance (“CINA”)3 pursuant to a *686stipulated set of facts to which counsel for Blessen H.’s mother, Tynetta H. (“Ms. H.”), had consented. Thereafter, Ms. H. filed a petition for writ of certiorari in this Court to consider the following question:
Whether in a CINA proceeding, the right to a contested adjudicatory hearing may be waived only by the parent’s personal,4 knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver.
We granted the petition and issued the writ of certiorari, In re Blessen H., 389 Md. 124, 883 A.2d 914 (2005). We shall hold that Ms. H.’s attorney’s acceptance of the stipulated facts in the CINA petition constituted a sufficient waiver of Ms. H.’s right to a contested CINA adjudicatory hearing.
The relevant facts in this case are procedural. On July 29, 2003, the Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services (the “Department”) filed a petition alleging that Blessen H. was a Child In Need of Assistance. On September 2, 2003, pursuant to Maryland Code (1973, 2002 Repl. Vol.), Section 3-817 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article,5 an adjudicatory hearing was held in the Circuit *687Court for Montgomery County, sitting as a juvenile court, to determine whether the allegations in the petition were true. The following colloquy ensued during the hearing at which Ms. H., her counsel, Sheldon A. (Blessen’s father), and the Department were present:
THE COURT: Now, this is set for trial today. Tell me how we’re proceeding.
THE DEPARTMENT: Well, Your Honor, we have had some discussions, I think as I indicated before we were on the record with this case, attempting to see if we could reach any type of agreement.
This case is a little different than our normal scheduled cases because there was a conflict with the pretrial date. Counsel for the mother attempted to reschedule and file a motion, I believe, in that attempt, and because of different people’s calendars and court calendar conflicts, we were never able to have a pretrial scheduled in this case.
THE COURT: Right.
THE DEPARTMENT: I had discussions with [Ms. H.’s counsel] outside, and while she said her client was not of a mind, in the brief time that we were talking, to reach an agreement, she did talk to her about what her thoughts would be about discussion with a mediator. And I believe she had some comments on that point with regard to her client’s willingness to have settlement discussions with us with the assistance of the mediator. If one were available.
COUNSEL FOR MS. H.: Yes, I did discuss with my client, and she is in agreement. If we could try to mediate this, she is willing to do that.
The court then iterated that, should mediation not be successful, a trial would not be possible later that day, and asked the parties:
*688THE COURT: Tell me what you want to do? I’ll start the trial right now. I will send you to mediation at 1:30. I will have this trial later this afternoon. We’ll get the administrative judge to continue the trial if mediation is not fruitful, so we don’t have to do it this afternoon.
You just tell me what you want me to do. If you all think that mediation will be fruitful, then it’s probably a good use of time.
THE DEPARTMENT: I would like to at least attempt mediation.
COUNSEL FOR MS. H.: My client wants mediation. She wants to mediate.
Thereafter, the court adjourned, and the parties entered into mediation.
Later that afternoon, after mediation, the parties returned to the courtroom and the adjudicatory hearing continued:
THE DEPARTMENT: Your Honor, we did reach an agreement based on an amended petition.
* * *
THE COURT: All right. You do have an amended petition? Go ahead.
THE DEPARTMENT: The amended petition is amended by handwriting and I placed at the top, “Factual Basis for CINA, September 2/03.”
THE COURT: Does everybody have a copy of this, or do you want us to make copies? Did you make copies?
THE DEPARTMENT: We made copies.
* * *
THE COURT: [I]s it everyone’s position, then, that these facts should be sustained and form the basis for a finding of CINA?
COUNSEL FOR THE CHILDREN: Yes, Your Honor.
COUNSEL FOR MS. H.: Yes, Your Honor.
SHELDON A.: Yes, Your Honor.
*689THE COURT: All right. I will make such a finding, that based on the agreement of all counsel and parties, because Mr. A. is here without counsel, that the facts alleged are now facts sustained, and they form a basis for a finding of CIÑA, and I will so find, that the child Blessen H. is a child in need of assistance.
The parties’ agreement was placed on the record by the Department; it called for Blessen H. to stay in foster care until successful completion of a home study of the paternal grandmother’s home, after which Blessen H. would be placed with the paternal grandmother, with weekly supervised visitation with Sheldon A., monthly supervised visitation with Ms. H., and no visitation with her maternal grandmother, Ms. G.
At the conclusion of the proceedings, the court brought Ms. G. into the courtroom to inform her that she was to have no contact with Blessen until further notice. Ms. G. then asked the judge if she could have the opportunity to explain her involvement in a prior incident with Blessen and Ms. H. that was of concern to the court, whereupon Ms. G. began to place blame for the incident on Ms. H., to which Ms. H. responded:
MS. H.: I can’t deal with this. It’s so many lies on this place. It’s just ridiculous.
COUNSEL FOR MS. H.: Shhhh.
MS. H.: It really is. You know. I’m trying to be the best parent I can be. I have already been slandered by DHS.
Sheldon don’t like some of this. And I have swallowed my pride to try to get this court hearing done. Okay.
I don’t deserve this. I’ve been the best mother I can be.
I have listened to you, Your Honor, have saying things to me, and you haven’t even asked me about my own character. You haven’t even asked me—
THE COURT: Asked you about your own what?
MS. H.: My own character. How did I end up in this situation. Why was I traveling? Why was my child not in a stable home? Some of these things are not—
*690THE COURT: Well, you have an attorney, ma’am, and I was listening to your attorney.
MS. H.: I can’t speak no more, Your Honor. I really can’t.
THE COURT: Well, then, don’t.
MS. H.: I really can’t.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. H.: You can go ahead and do the trial. I need to sit outside.
THE COURT: Well, there isn’t any trial. This is finished.
Ms. H. subsequently appealed to the Court of Special Appeals alleging that her attorney’s stipulation to the facts in the CINA petition was not sufficient to waive her right to a contested CINA adjudicatory hearing because the waiver had to have been made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently by Ms. H. In a reported opinion, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court’s CINA determination and emphasized that the requirement of a personal, voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver has only been applied in punitive proceedings that carry the risk of incarceration. The intermediate appellate court noted that, although CINA proceedings implicate the fundamental right of a parent to raise his or her children, thereby demanding a certain level of due process, it is less than that owed an individual who faces the loss of personal liberty, and therefore, a personal waiver under the Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), standard was not required.
Ms. H. contends that CINA adjudicatory hearings represent the first step towards termination of a parent’s right to raise his or her children, which, as a fundamental right, requires the highest level of due process protection. The significance of CINA adjudicatory hearings, she alleges, is reflected in the requirement contained in Section 3-817(b) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code (1973, 2002 Repl. Yol.) of the strict application of the Maryland Rules of Evidence during the proceedings, as contrasted with the discretionary application of the Maryland Rules of Evidence in *691CINA shelter care hearings,6 disposition hearings, permanency planning hearings,7 and subsequent review hearings.8 Moreover, Ms. H. points out that parents have the right to representation by counsel during CINA adjudicatory hearings, and that indigent parents are provided counsel at the State’s cost.9 Ms. H., therefore, maintains that, as due process requires both the strict application of the Maryland Rules of Evidence and representation by counsel during CINA adjudicatory hearings, so must it require the most stringent form of waiver to forego those proceedings. Ms. H. also claims that the strictest form of waiver is required because CINA proceedings can give rise to separate criminal proceedings against *692the parents. Accordingly, Ms. H. alleges that the right to a contested CINA adjudicatory hearing only can be waived where the record affirmatively discloses a personal, voluntary, knowing and intelligent relinquishment of the right by the parent herself, which requires a colloquy on the record in which the court would advise the parent of the right to have a contested CINA adjudicatory hearing, of the right to compel and present witnesses and to present evidence during the proceedings, that waiver of the hearing could lead to limitation of the parental rights, of the risk of making incriminating statements during the proceedings, and of the burden of proof assigned to the State, as well as would inquire into whether the parent is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, understands the English language, and is waiving the proceedings voluntarily, absent any duress or coercion.
Conversely, the State argues that the juvenile court was not required to make a personal inquiry of Ms. H. to confirm that her waiver of the contested adjudicatory hearing was voluntary, knowing and intelligent because, based upon the totality of the circumstances, it was clear to the court that Ms. H.’s waiver was voluntary, knowing and intelligent. Moreover, the State argues that the stricter standard of waiver is not required for all proceedings that implicate fundamental rights, only those that are punitive in nature and present the possibility of incarceration, unlike CINA proceedings, which are remedial in nature and cannot result in confinement. Furthermore, the State asserts that the application of the personal, voluntary, knowing and intelligent standard of waiver to these proceedings would be inconsistent with other procedural aspects of CINA adjudicatory actions, such as the low burden of proof, a preponderance of the evidence, assigned to the State. The State also contends that the application of this heightened standard of waiver also would be inconsistent with In re Adoption/Guardianship No. 93321055, 344 Md. 458, 687 A.2d 681 (1997), where this Court held that Maryland’s statutory scheme, which permits parents to waive their right to contest termination of their parental rights through inaction, does not violate due process.
*693A. Fundamental Right of Parenting and CINA Proceedings
Maryland has long recognized the right of parents to raise their children “with minimal state interference” as a constitutionally protected fundamental right. See In re Billy W., Jessica W., Mary S. & George B., 386 Md. 675, 683, 874 A.2d 423, 428 (2005); In re Samone H. and Marchay E., 385 Md. 282, 299, 869 A.2d 370, 380 (2005); In re Mark M., 365 Md. 687, 705, 782 A.2d 332, 342-43 (2001); In re Adoption/Guardianship No. 10941, 335 Md. 99, 112, 642 A.2d 201, 208 (1994) (quoting Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 101 S.Ct. 2153, 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981)). Indeed, we have iterated that:
A parent’s interest in raising a child is, no doubt, a fundamental right, recognized by the United States Supreme Court and this Court. The United States Supreme Court has long avowed the basic civil right encompassed by child rearing and family life. See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 2060, 147 L.Ed.2d 49, 57 (2000) (stating that ‘the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children’); See also Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 1394-95, 71 L.Ed.2d 599, 606 (1982) (discussing ‘the fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child’); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 1212-13, 31 L.Ed.2d 551, 558-59 (1972)(stating that ‘[t]he rights to conceive and to raise one’s children have been deemed ‘essential,’ and that ‘[t]he integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ... the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ... and the Ninth Amendment ....’) (internal citations omitted). Maryland, too, has declared a parent’s interest in raising a child to be so fundamental that it ‘cannot be taken away unless clearly justified.’ Boswell v. Boswell, 352 Md. 204, 218, 721 A.2d 662, 669 (1998) (citing In re Adoption No. 10941, 335 Md. 99, 112, 642 A.2d 201 (1994)).
*694In re Samone H., 385 Md. at 300, 869 A.2d at 380 (quoting In re Mark M., 365 Md. at 705, 782 A.2d at 342-43). This right, however, is not absolute:
Pursuant to the doctrine of parens patriae, the State of Maryland has an interest in caring for those, such as minors, who cannot care for themselves. See Boswell, 352 Md. at 218-19, 721 A.2d at 669. We have held that ‘the best interests of the child may take precedence over the parent’s liberty interest in the course of a custody, visitation, or adoption dispute.’ Boswell, 352 Md. at 219, 721 A.2d at 669; see also In re Adoption No. 10941, 335 Md. at 113, 642 A.2d at 208 (stating that “the controlling factor ... is ... what best serves the interest of the child”). That which will best promote the child’s welfare becomes particularly consequential where the interests of a child are in jeopardy, as is often the case in situations involving sexual, physical, or emotional abuse by a parent. As we stated in In re Adoption/Guardianship No. A91-71A, 334 Md. 538, 640 A.2d 1085 (1994), the child’s welfare is ‘a consideration that is of transcendent importance’ when the child might otherwise be in jeopardy. Id. at 561, 640 A.2d at 1096 (citation omitted).
We have recognized that in cases where abuse or neglect is evidenced, particularly in a CIÑA case, the court’s role is necessarily more pro-active. See In re Justin D., [357 Md. 431, 448, 745 A.2d 408, 417 (2000) ].
In re Mark M., 365 Md. at 705-07, 782 A.2d at 343.
The federal and state roles in the child welfare system were explored in In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 819 A.2d 1030 (2003) (quoting from Judge Karwacki in In re Adoption/Guardianship No. 10941, 335 Md. 99, 103-06, 642 A.2d 201, 203-05 (1994));
The Maryland General Assembly has enacted a comprehensive statutory scheme to address those situations where a child is at risk because of his or her parents’ inability or unwillingness to care for him or her. Title 5 of the Family *695Law Article of the Maryland Code (1984, 1991 Repl.Vol.) (Hereinafter “F.L.”) governs the custody, guardianship, adoption and general protection of children who because of abuse or neglect come within the purview of the Department of Human Resources ...
During the 1970’s, nationwide concern grew regarding the large number of children who remained out of the homes of their biological parents throughout their childhood, frequently moved from one foster care situation to another, thereby reaching majority without belonging to a permanent family. This phenomenon became known as ‘foster care drift’ and resulted in the enactment by Congress of Public Law 96-272, the ‘Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980,’ codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 610-679 (1988). One of the important purposes of this law was to eliminate foster care drift by requiring states to adopt statutes to facilitate permanent placement for children as a condition to receiving federal funding for their foster care and adoption assistance programs.
Under the federal act, a state is required, among other things, to provide a written case plan for each child for whom the state claims federal foster care maintenance payments. 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(16). The case plan must include a description of the home or institution into which the child is placed, a discussion of the appropriateness of the placement, and a description of the services provided to the parents, child and foster parents to facilitate return of the child to his or her own home or to establish another permanent placement for the child. 42 U.S.C. § 675(1). The state must also implement a case review system that provides for administrative review of the case plan at least every six months and judicial review no later than eighteen months after placement and periodically thereafter. 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(B) and (C). The purpose of the judicial review is to ‘determine the future status of the child’ including whether the child should be returned to its biologi*696cal parents, continued in foster care for a specified period, placed for adoption, or because of the child’s special needs or circumstances, continued in foster case on a long term basis. 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(C).
Maryland receives considerable federal funds pursuant to this Act. Accordingly, the Maryland General Assembly has enacted legislation to comply with the federal requirements. Under Maryland’' •statutory scheme, for those children committed to a local department of social services the department is required to develop and implement a permanency plan that is in the best interests of the child. F.L. § 5-525.
In developing the permanency plan, the department is required to consider a statutory hierarchy of placement options in descending order of priority. F.L. § 5-525(c). First and foremost, the department must consider returning the child to the child’s natural parents or guardians. F.L. § 5—525(c)(1). If reunification with the biological parents is not possible, the department must consider placing the child with relatives to whom adoption, guardianship, or care and custody, in descending order of priority, are planned to be granted. F.L. § 5—525(c)(2). If placement with relatives is not possible, then the department must consider adoption by a current foster parent or other approved adoptive family. F.L. § 5—525(c)(3). Only in exceptional situations as defined by rule or regulation is a child to be placed in long term foster care. F.L. § 5-525(c)(5).
If it is determined that reunification is not possible and that adoption is in the child’s best interests, the juvenile court lacks jurisdiction to finalize this plan. In re Darius A., 47 Md.App. 232, 235, 422 A.2d 71, 72 (1980); see also F.L. § 1-201. Instead, unless the parents consent to the adoption of their child, the department is required to petition the circuit court for guardianship pursuant to F.L. § 5-313. If the circuit court finds by clear and convincing evidence, after considering the statutorily enumerated factors, that it is in the best interests of a child previously adjudicated a CINA for parental rights to be terminated, the circuit court has authority to grant the department’s *697petition for guardianship. Such award carries with it the right for the department to consent to the adoption of the child. F.L. §§ 5-311 and 5-317(f).
The overriding theme of both the federal and state legislation is that a child should have permanency in his or her life. The valid premise is that it is in a child’s best interest to be placed in a permanent home and to spend as little time as possible in foster care. Thus, Title 5 of the Family Law Article seeks to prevent the need for removal of a child from its home, to return a child to its home when possible, and where returning home is not possible, to place the child in another permanent placement that has legal status.
Id. at 573-76, 819 A.2d at 1043-45 (emphasis added); see also In re Adoption/Guardianship Nos. J9610436 and J9711031, 368 Md. 666, 676-78, 796 A.2d 778, 783-85.
Under this statutory scheme, upon receipt of a complaint from a person or agency that a child is being abused or neglected, the county department of social services undertakes an investigation to determine whether the child is in need of assistance. See Md.Code (1973, 2002 Repl.Vol.), § 3-809(a) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. If the department concludes that the court has jurisdiction over the matter and determines that filing a petition would be in the best interest of the child, it will file a petition alleging that the child is in need of assistance. After the petition is filed, “the court shall hold an adjudicatory hearing,” Md.Code (1973, 2002 RepLVol.), § 3-817 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article,10 the purpose of which is to determine whether the allegations in the petition for court intervention are true. Md.Code (1973, 2002 Repl.Vol), § 3-801(c) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. At the adjudicatory hearing, the Maryland Rules of Evidence under Title 5 of the Maryland *698Rules apply, and the allegations in the petition must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. Md.Code (1978, 2002 RepLVol.), § 3-817 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. It is within this statutory scheme that we must determine what level of due process protection must be afforded parents who are deemed to have waived a contested CINA adjudicatory hearing.
B. Voluntary, Knowing and Intelligent Waiver
In the case sub judice we are faced with the question of whether Ms. H.’s attorney’s agreement with the stipulated facts presented by the State constituted an effective waiver of Ms. H.’s right to a contested CINA adjudicatory hearing.
The term “waiver,” as noted by Justice Black, speaking for the Supreme Court in Green v. U.S., 355 U.S. 184, 191, 78 S.Ct. 221, 226, 2 L.Ed.2d 199, 206 (1957), “is a vague term used for a great variety of purposes, good and bad, in the law.” Its ambiguity results from the infinite number of rights that can be waived and the various procedures available forwarder, as the Supreme Court illustrated in U.S. v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993):
[Wjaiver is the ‘intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.’ Whether a particular right is waivable; whether the defendant must participate personally in the waiver; whether certain procedures are required for waiver; and whether the defendant’s choice must be particularly informed or voluntary, all depend on the right at stake.
Id. at 733, 113 S.Ct. at 1777, 123 L.Ed.2d. at 519 (citations omitted). Judge John C. Eldridge, writing for this Court, also has reflected upon the ambiguity inherent in the term “waiver” in Curtis v. State, 284 Md. 132, 395 A.2d 464 (1978):
In the broadest sense of the word, any tactical decision by counsel, inaction by counsel, or procedural default, could be described as a “waiver.” For example, an attorney must make numerous decisions in the course of a trial. Whenever he makes one, choosing to take or forego a particular action, the alternate choice could be said to have been *699waived. However, with regard to constitutional rights in a criminal proceeding, in a much narrower sense the term waiver could be said to connote the intelligent and knowing relinquishment of certain basic constitutional rights under circumstances where the courts have held that only such intelligent and knowing action will bind the defendant.
Id. at 147, 395 A.2d at 473.
Because of the plethora of opportunities to waive substantive rights, as well as procedural safeguards, the Supreme Court, as well as this Court, have required judges to personally address a party on the record only in limited circumstances, to ensure that the waiver is being made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. These circumstances have included only those proceedings in which the right sought to be waived was “fundamental” and from which confinement could result.
The seminal case addressing voluntary, knowing and intelligent waivers and the limited circumstances in which “personal” waivers are required is Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), a habeas corpus case in which the defendant complained he had been convicted of uttering and possession of counterfeit money without the benefit of counsel. Exploring the level of scrutiny that should be afforded a waiver of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, the Supreme Court emphasized that “ ‘courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver’ of fundamental constitutional rights,” and determined that:
[i]f the accused ... is not represented by counsel and has not competently and intelligently waived his constitutional right, the Sixth Amendment stands as a jurisdictional bar to a valid conviction and sentence depriving him of his life or his liberty.
Id. at 464, 468, 58 S.Ct. at 1023, 1024, 82 L.Ed. at 1466, 1468. To ensure that “there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused,” id. at 465, 58 S.Ct. at 1023, 82 L.Ed. at 1467, the Supreme Court determined that trial courts should inquire into “the background, experience, and conduct of the accused,” id. at 464, 58 S.Ct. at 1023, 82 L.Ed. at 1466, and suggested *700that such inquiry “appear upon the record.” Id. at 465, 58 S.Ct. at 1023, 82 L.Ed. at 1467. Therefore, the stricter standard of waiver requiring a colloquy arose with respect to the relinquishment of a fundamental right in a proceeding that could result in confinement.
The Supreme Court further explored the heightened standard of waiver in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973), in which the Court held that a knowing and intelligent waiver was not required for the defendant to consent to a search of his vehicle because:
It would be unrealistic to expect that in the informal, unstructured context of a consent search, a policeman, upon pain of tainting the evidence obtained, could make the detailed type of examination demanded by Johnson. And, if for this reason a diluted form of ‘waiver’ were found acceptable, that would itself be ample recognition of the fact that there is no universal standard that must be applied in every situation where a person foregoes a constitutional right.
Id. at 245, 93 S.Ct. at 2057, 36 L.Ed.2d at 873. Highlighting the distinctions between the protection against unreasonable searches contained in the Fourth Amendment and the promotion of a fair criminal trial in the Sixth Amendment, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the “cases do not reflect an uncritical demand for a knowing and intelligent waiver in every situation where a person has failed to invoke a constitutional protection.” Id. at 235, 93 S.Ct. at 2052, 36 L.Ed.2d at 867, but rather, a more personal or stricter standard of waiver is only required in proceedings in which fundamental rights are implicated and from which confinement could result:
A prime example is the right to counsel. For without that right, a wholly innocent accused faces the real and substantial danger that simply because of his lack of legal expertise he may be convicted.
Id. at 241, 93 S.Ct. at 2055, 36 L.Ed.2d at 871.
In addition to the right to counsel, the application of the stricter standard of waiver has also been extended to other fundamental procedural rights in proceedings which could *701result in confinement, such as waiver of the right to trial through entry of a guilty plea, Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243-44, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, 280 (1969) (“What is at stake for an accused facing death or imprisonment demands the utmost solicitude of which courts are capable in canvassing the matter with the accused to make sure he has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequence.”); the waiver of the right to trial by jury, Adams v. United States, 317 U.S. 269, 63 S.Ct. 236, 87 L.Ed. 268 (1942) (concluding that defendant had personally, intelligently and competently waived his right to a jury trial where the record showed that the trial court had informed defendant of his constitutional rights, inquired into the defendant’s legal experience, and had been repeatedly assured by the defendant that he knew what he was doing); and the waiver of the right to counsel in juvenile delinquency determinations, Application of Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 42, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 1451, 18 L.Ed.2d 527, 554 (1967) (“[The parties] had a right expressly to be advised that they might retain counsel and to be confronted with the need for specific consideration of whether they did or did not choose to waive the right.”).
We also have required the heightened standard of personal waiver of specific fundamental rights in proceedings that could result in confinement. See e.g., Curtis v. State, 284 Md. at 143, 395 A.2d at 470 (“The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.”) (quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. at 464, 58 S.Ct. at 1023, 82 L.Ed. at 1466);11 State v. Priet, 289 Md. 267, 290, 424 A.2d 349, 360-61 (1981) (holding guilty pleas knowingly and voluntarily entered when trial judge questioned each defendant at length as to voluntariness of *702plea, and each defendant was informed of the penalty for the offense and of the constitutional and other rights waived by entry of the plea);12 Countess v. State, 286 Md. 444, 454, 408 A.2d 1302, 1307 (1979) (“The inquiry upon which the court determines that the defendant has made his election for a court trial with full knowledge of his right to a jury trial and has knowingly and voluntarily waived the right, must be ‘of the defendant on the record.’ ”).
Based upon this body of law, Ms. H. contends that, because CINA proceedings can be likened to criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings, as expressed by the Supreme Court in M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 117 S.Ct. 555, 136 L.Ed.2d 473 (1996), due process requires application of the more stringent standard of waiver in CINA adjudicatory proceedings. In M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 117 S.Ct. 555, 136 L.Ed.2d 473 (1996), a mother was denied her right to appeal the decision to terminate her parental rights because she could not afford to prepay the cost of the appellate proceedings as required by Mississippi law. Holding that the law denied the mother both equal protection and due process of law, the Supreme Court likened the termination proceedings to criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings for which a defendant’s access to appeal could not be denied because of the inability to pay transcript fees. Id. at 123, 117 S.Ct. at 567, 136 L.Ed.2d at 492. The analogy, however, to criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings in access to appeal cases when the Court had theretofore mandated public assistance to indigents is inapposite to the case at bar because neither the Supreme Court nor this Court has ever required a personal waiver of fundamental rights in proceedings that could not result in confinement.
In Hersch v. State, 317 Md. 200, 562 A.2d 1254 (1989), for example, this Court explored whether an attorney could waive the defendant’s right to a contested probation revocation *703hearing or whether the waiver had to be elicited from the defendant himself. Noting that revocation of probation proceedings are civil proceedings, we explained that:
the fact that a probation violation proceedings is civil in nature is also not dispositive.... A probation revocation proceeding can, and often does, result in immediate deprivation of liberty. Because the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law, the Supreme Court has said that many, though not all, of the constitutional protections available to criminal defendants must be afforded to persons facing revocation of parole or probation.
Id. at 207, 562 A.2d at 1257 (emphasis added). Accordingly, we held that:
when the immediate consequences of a violation of probation may well be imprisonment, often for a significant period of time, we believe Johnson v. Zerbst standard must apply to the waiver of the important right that the probationer has to put the State to its proof---- [N]o particular litany is required to show a waiver of these rights by a probationer, but the record must show that ‘the charge was explained to the probationer in understandable terms and that his response demonstrated that this actions were knowing and voluntary.’ It takes but a few moments to ensure that the probationer -personally understands the nature of the charges of alleged violations.
Id,, at 208-209, 562 A.2d at 1258 (emphasis added). In so doing, we reviewed the Supreme Court cases requiring a colloquy with the defendant only where there was a possibility of confinement and fundamental rights were implicated.
In Jones v. State, 351 Md. 264, 718 A.2d 222 (1998), we addressed the question of whether a waiver of the defendant’s right to a contested constructive civil contempt hearing under Maryland Rule 15-207(e)13 may be effectuated through the *704defendant’s attorney, or whether the defendant himself personally had to waive the proceedings. Applying the reasoning in Hersch, we observed that:
[w]e imposed th[e] higher standard of waiver in violation of probation proceedings because we concluded that on balance, this standard ‘goes a long way toward ensuring essential fairness in an important proceeding while imposing only a small additional burden upon the trial judge and permitting the proceeding to remain essentially informal.’
Under Appellant’s analysis, he is entitled to the procedural protections that defendants enjoy in violation of probation proceedings because, in his view, the court’s finding of contempt exposes him to the ‘threat of immediate incarceration.’ He is incorrect.
*705Id. at 275, 718 A.2d at 228. We determined that, because under Rule 15-207 the defendant must first be afforded the opportunity to show that he has the ability to purge his debt before imprisonment is permitted, the proceedings did not pose an immediate threat of incarceration to the defendant. Id. at 275-77, 718 A.2d at 228-29. Accordingly, we held that a personal waiver of the right to the proceedings was not required. Id.
In Zetty v. Piatt, 365 Md. 141, 776 A.2d 631 (2001), this Court explored whether a constructive civil contempt proceeding implicated Maryland Rule 15-206(e),14 which enumerates the procedures required for waiver of counsel, when the defendant was found to be in contempt and sentenced to 179 days incarceration. Holding that a personal waiver is required in constructive civil contempt proceedings where incarceration is sought, we emphasized that:
[a] defendant’s actual incarceration in a jail, as a result of a proceeding at which he was unrepresented by counsel and did not knowingly and intelligently waive the right to counsel, is fundamentally unfair.
Id. at 158, 776 A.2d at 641. Therefore, “it is the fact of incarceration, and not the label placed upon the proceeding,” which compels the requirement of a personal waiver. Id.
Ms. H. also contends, though, that because CINA adjudicatory proceedings could give rise to separate criminal proceed*706ings against the parent,15 a colloquy on the record is required to ensure that the parent is waiving her rights voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.16 We had the opportunity to explore the character of CINA proceedings In re John P. and Thomas P., 311 Md. 700, 537 A.2d 263 (1988), in which the juvenile court ruled that John P. and Thomas P. were not children in need of assistance and dismissed the case. Counsel for the children asked the court to reconsider, relying on Maryland Rule 916, which allowed for the modification or vacation of a juvenile court order if. it is within the best interests of the child. Ms. P., the mother of the children, opposed the motion on the ground that a retrial would be violative of double jeopardy. We noted that double jeopardy prohibitions only apply to bar criminal prosecutions, and that a CINA proceeding was civil in nature. Id. at 707, 537 A.2d at *707267. Holding that the second CINA proceeding did not violate double jeopardy, we explained:
The General Assembly has classified juvenile proceedings as civil and not criminal in nature. Moreover, the legislative intention underlying a CINA proceeding is not to punish the parent; rather, the purpose is to protect the child and provide for his best interests. Additionally, it cannot be said that the potential CINA ‘sanctions’ are “ ‘so punitive ... in .. . effect as to negate that intention.’ ”
Id. at 709, 537 A.2d at 268 (citations omitted). We further explicated that,
[wjhile ordinarily a CINA proceeding is not a criminal action against a parent, the Maryland statute does allow the State to seek criminal sanctions against the parent.... Consequently a CINA case does have a criminal aspect to it. Here, however, the State did not seek criminal sanctions against Ms. P. in either the first proceeding or in the subsequent petition for reconsideration. When no sanctions of a criminal nature are sought by the State ... it would seem that the double jeopardy prohibition is inapplicable.
Id. at 708, 537 A.2d at 267 (citations and footnote omitted). The State also did not seek criminal sanctions against Ms. H. in the instant case so that a personal waiver of the contested adjudicatory hearing was not necessary.
Ms. H. further asserts that, under the balancing test enumerated by the Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), and employed by this Court in In re Adoption/Guardianship No. 93321055/ CAD, 344 Md. 458, 491, 687 A.2d 681, 697 (1997), we are compelled to require the stricter standard of waiver to CINA adjudicatory hearings because the State’s interest in expediting CINA proceedings pales in comparison to the fundamentally important right of parents to raise their children, and the high risk of erroneous deprivation of that right in proceedings where the parent is forced to make decisions without proper advice by the Court. In In re Adoption/Guardianship No. 93321055/CAD, we addressed whether Maryland Code (1984, *7081991 Rep. Yol.), Section 5-322(d) of the Family Law Article, which permits parents to waive the right to contest the adoption of their child by failing to file a notice of objection to a petition for guardianship by an enumerated deadline, affords parents sufficient due process of law.17 In determining that the due process rights of parents were not offended when the failure to file a timely objection was deemed irrevocable, we emphasized the fairness and adequacy of the notice afforded the parent. Certainly if the due process rights of parents are not violated by the failure to file a timely notice of objection in termination of parental rights proceedings, their due process rights are not violated when they do not personally waive less intrusive CINA adjudicatory proceedings.
Contrary, then, ' the arguments raised by Ms. H., the stricter standard of waiver requiring the court to conduct a personal colloquy with a parent to establish her or his voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver ordinarily only has been applied where the rights to be waived have been deemed to be “fundamental,” and the proceedings have been those that could result in confinement. In the present case, Ms. H.’s waiver of a contested CINA adjudicatory hearing was sufficient when her attorney concurred with the stipulated facts.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS AFFIRMED. COSTS IN THIS COURT AND THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO BE PAID BY THE PETITIONER.

. An adjudicatory hearing is a hearing under the Juvenile Causes subtitle of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code to determine whether the allegations in a petition for court intervention filed by the county department of social services on behalf of a child, other than the allegation that the child requires the court's intervention, are true. Md.Code (1973, 2002 Repl.Vol.), § 3-801(c) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article.

. Disposition hearing "means a hearing ... to determine: (1) Whether a child is in need of assistance; and (2) If so, the nature of the court’s intervention to protect the child’s health, safety, and well-being.” Md. Code (1973, 2002 Repl.Vol.), § 3-80 l(m) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article.

. Maryland Code (1973, 2002 Repl.Vol.), Section 3-801(f) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article defines a CINA as:
*686"Child in need of assistance” means a child who requires court intervention because:
(1) The child has been abused, has been neglected, has a developmental disability, or has a mental disorder; and
(2) The child’s parents, guardian, or custodian are unable or unwilling to give proper care and attention to the child and the child’s needs.

. The word "personal” in the certiorari question appears to have been taken from the Court of Special Appeals’s opinion. We understand by its use that Ms. H. is asking whether she is entitled, prior to acceptance of a waiver of a contested adjudicatory hearing, to a colloquy with the judge in which he or she explains the nature and consequences of such a hearing, and any rights that Ms. H. may have related to such a hearing, and inquires whether Ms. H. knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily is relinquishing her right to a contested proceeding.

. Maryland Code (1973, 2002 Repl.Vol.), Section 3-817of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, provides:
(a) Required.—After a CINA petition is filed under this subtitle, the court shall hold an adjudicatory hearing.
(b) Applicability of Maryland Rules.—The rules of evidence under Title 5 of the Maryland Rules shall apply at an adjudicatory hearing.
*687(c) Standard of Proof.—The allegations in a petition tinder this subtitle shall be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.

. Shelter care hearing means a "hearing held before disposition to determine whether the temporary placement of the child outside the home is warranted." Md.Code (1973, 2002 Repl.Vol.), § 3-801(x) of the Court and Judicial Proceedings Article.

. Permanency plan hearing means a hearing in which the court determines the child's permanency plan after the child is determined to be a CINA, the options being: reunification with the child’s parents or guardian, placement with relatives for guardianship or adoption, adoption or guardianship by nonrelative, continuation in current placement due to the child’s special needs, or, if sixteen years or older, preparation for independent living. Md.Code (1984, 1999 Repl.Vol.), § 5-525(e) of the Family Law Article.

. Review hearing means hearing conducted by court six months after child is placed outside of the home to review the child's permanency plan, or every twelve months after child is placed with a caregiver who has agreed to care for the child on a permanent basis. Md.Code (1973, 2003 Repl.Vol.), § 3--823(h) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article.

. Maryland Code (1973, 2002 Repl.Vol.), Section 3-813 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article provides in relevant part:
(a) In general.—Except as provided in subsection (b) and (c) of this section, a party is entitled to the assistance of counsel at every stage of any proceeding under this subtitle.
(b) Eligible parties.—Except for the local department and the child who is the subject of the petition, a party is not entitled to the assistance of counsel at State expense, unless the party is:
(1) Indigent; or
(2) Otherwise not represented and:
(i) Under the age of 18 years; or
(ii) Incompetency by reason of mental disability.

. See also Maryland Rule 11-114, which provides in pertinent part:
Adjudicatory hearing.
a. Requirement. After a juvenile petition has been filed, and unless jurisdiction has been waived, the court shall hold an adjudicatory hearing.

. See also Maryland Rule 4-215(b) ("If a defendant who is not represented by counsel indicates a desire to waive counsel, the court may not accept the waiver until it determines, after an examination of the defendant on the record ... that the defendant is knowingly and voluntarily waiving the right.”)

. See also Maryland Rule 4-242(c) ("The court may accept a plea of guilty only after it determines, upon an examination of the defendant on the record in open court ... that ... the defendant is pleading voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea....)”

. Maryland Rule 15-207(e) provides:
*704(e) Constructive Civil Contempt—Support Enforcement Action. (1)
Applicability. This section applies to proceedings for constructive civil contempt based on an alleged failure to pay spousal or child support, including an award of emergency family maintenance under Code, Family Law Article, Title 4, Subtitle 5.
(2) Petitioner's Burden of Proof. Subject to subsection (3) of this section, the court may make a finding of contempt if the petitioner proves by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged contemnor has not paid the amount owed, accounting from the effective date of the support order through the date of the contempt hearing.
(3) When a Finding of Contempt May Not Be Made. The court may not make a finding of contempt if the alleged contemnor proves by a preponderance of the evidence that (A) from the date of the support order through the date of the contempt hearing the alleged contemnor (i) never had the ability to pay more than the amount actually paid and (ii) made reasonable efforts to become or remain employed or otherwise lawfully obtain the funds necessary to make payment, or (B) enforcement by contempt is barred by limitations as to each unpaid spousal or child support payment for which the alleged contemnor does not make the proof set forth in subsection (3)(A) of this section.
(4) Order. Upon a finding of constructive civil contempt for failure to pay spousal or child support, the court shall issue a written order that specifies (A) the amount of the arrearage for which enforcement by contempt is not barred by limitations, (B) any sanction imposed for the contempt, and (C) how the contempt may be purged. If the contemnor does not have the present ability to purge the contempt, the order may include directions that the contemnor make specified payments on the arrearage at future times and perform specified acts to enable the contemnor to comply with the direction to make payments.

. Maryland Rule 15-206(e) provides in pertinent part:
(e) Waiver of counsel if incarceration is sought.
(1) Applicability. This section applies if incarceration is sought and applies only to court hearings before a judge.
(2) Appearance in Court Without Counsel.
(A) If the alleged contemnor appears in court without counsel, the court shall make certain that the alleged contemnor has received a copy of the order containing notice of the right to counsel or was advised of the contents of the notice in accordance with Rule 9-208(d);
(B) If the alleged contemnor indicates a desire to waive counsel, the court shall determine, after an examination of the alleged contemnor on the record, that the waiver is knowing and voluntary.

. Ms. H. refers to Maryland Code (1974, 2002 Repl.VoI.), Section 3-828 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, for support of this assertion, which provides in relevant part:
Contributing to acts, omissions, or conditions rendering a child in need of assistance.
(a) Prohibition.—An adult may not wilfully contribute to, encourage, cause or tend to cause any act, omission, or condition that renders a child in need of assistance.
(c) Penalty.—An adult who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $2,500 or imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or both.

. Ms. H. also relies upon In the Interest of Howard, 382 So.2d 194 (La.App.1980), In re Baby Girl Doe, 149 Ohio App.3d 717, 778 N.E.2d 1053 (2002), and In re Monique T., 2 Cal.App.4th 1372, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 198 (1992). We do not, however, find these cases persuasive. In In the Interest of Howard, the parents of a fourteen-year-old girl were charged with abuse and neglect under a Louisiana criminal law for which the parents could have been incarcerated. Because the proceedings could have resulted in confinement, Louisiana’s intermediate appellate court held that the parents had a constitutional right to appointment of counsel, which could only be waived knowingly and intelligently. 382 So.2d at 195.
Furthermore, in both In re Monique T., 2 Cal.App.4th 1372, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 198 (1992), and In re Baby Girl Doe, 149 Ohio App.3d 717, 778 N.E.2d 1053 (2002), there were statutory frameworks requiring personal waiver, which both courts found not to be dispositive. We have no similar statute here.

. Maryland Code (1984, 1991 Repl.Vol.), Section 5-322(d) of the Family Law Article provides in pertinent part:
(d) Failure to respond or waiver of notification.—If a person is notified under this section and fails to file notice of objection within the time stated in the show cause order:
(1) The court shall consider the person who is notified to have consented to the adoption or to the guardianship; and
(2) the petition shall be treated in the same manner as a petition to which consent has been given.