MD Court of Special Appeals uphold termination of parental rights

A mother who won a tenuous victory in a termination of parental rights case - only to lose it on a motion to alter or amend judgment filed by the Prince George's County Department of Social Services - has again met with defeat in the Court of Special Appeals.The lower court properly exercised its discretion, even after the entry of judgment in Rita M.'s favor, to consider new evidence that the mother had resumed her former substance-abuse habits and was lax in her attempts to visit her son, the appeals court held.Part of the problem, according to the mother, was that she had gone to North Carolina in September 2004 to care for her ailing father and sister - both of whom, coincidentally, died on Oct. 17 of that year. But the lower court considered evidence from Aug. 24, 2004 to Jan. 19, 2005 - before and after the Oct. 4, 2004 judgment that declined to terminate her parental rights.We hold that Rule 2-534 accords the trial court discretion to consider admissible evidence of facts occurring after the date of entry of judgment when those facts are directly related to relevant facts arising between the date of trial and the date of entry of judgment, Judge Patrick I. Woodward wrote in his first reported opinion since joining the appellate court in May.Joshua, who suffered from a host of medical and developmental problems, was adjudicated a child in need of assistance in 2001 and 2002. The Prince George's County Circuit Court found that Rita M.'s substance abuse problems interfered with her ability to raise her son.In October 2004, following an August hearing, the court ruled it was not in the child's best interest to grant DSS's motion to terminate parental rights. Rita M., the court noted, had been drug- free for eight months and had a new husband who supported the family financially.At that time, the court ordered Rita M. to continue her substance abuse programs and allow monitoring by DSS. Eleven days after judgment was entered, DSS filed a motion to alter or amend it, asserting that Rita M. was out of town and was no longer participating in treatment and monitoring. After a hearing that winter, the court on Feb. 28 issued an order terminating the mother's parental rights. The evidence included findings that, since the August 2004 hearing, Rita M. had smoked crack cocaine, failed to submit to urinalysis on some occasions, tested positive on others, and declined opportunities to visit her son.WHAT THE COURT HELDCase:In Re: Adopt./Guard. of Joshua M., CSA No. 82, Sept. Term 2005. Reported. Opinion by Woodward, J. Filed Dec. 23, 2005.Issue:Did the circuit court err, after denying a petition to terminate parental rights, in amending the earlier judgment to terminate those rights? Holding:No; affirmed. The court properly exercised its discretion in considering facts occurring after the entry of judgment which were directly related to other relevant facts arising between the trial and entry of judgment. Counsel:Nenutzka C. Villamar for appellant; C.J. Messerschmidt for appellee.RecordFax 5-1223-01 (20 pages).

Copyright 2005 Dolan Media Newswires
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.