Medicated mother gets chance at reunification with daughter

In a case addressing the rights of the mentally ill to raise their children, the Court of Appeals yesterday reversed a Montgomery County juvenile judge's order that prevented a mother treated for psychiatric disorders from being reunited with her daughter.

"The presence of a mental illness is not in and of itself a compelling reason for not pursuing reunification of a family unit, any more than would be the discovery that a parent had a terminal illness or was on the brink of financial ruin," Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote.

The court remanded the case to the juvenile court for further hearings on the permanency plan for the child.

"We're obviously very pleased," said Assistant Public Defender Peter F. Rose, who represented the mother on appeal. "They dearly love each other and desperately want to be together."

In its opinion, the court also faulted the Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services for its treatment of the case.

In particular, the court criticized a social worker's conclusion that the mother was relapsing to manic episodes because, on a weekend visit, she took her daughter to see a statue at the Bethesda Naval Hospital before church.

The court also noted the strain the department had placed on the mother by setting up frequent appointments that ultimately caused the mother to miss so much time from work that she lost her job.

The lower court also erred in focusing on the mother's conduct during a period of relapse, rather than her progress in stabilizing her illness over the past two years.

"The state would not be allowed to take a child away from a diabetic, who has managed successfully his or her ailment through self-administered insulin, on the mere fear that he or she might stop taking the insulin and fall into a diabetic coma at any time," Harrell wrote.

In deciding the case, the court stressed parents' fundamental constitutional rights to raise their children as the starting point for reviewing cases where the state has intervened in family matters.

The analysis, the court reasoned, then turns to examining the best interests of the child.

"The standard does not require simply that a determination be made that one environment or set of circumstances is superior to another," Harrell wrote.

The standard "embraces a strong presumption that the child's best interests are served by maintaining parental rights," the court said.

"If it were otherwise," Harrell wrote, "the most disadvantaged of our adult citizens always would be at greater risk of losing custody of their children than those more fortunate. Those of our citizens coping with emotional or mental difficulties could be faced with such discrimination."

Whenever the best interest of the child is the standard, regardless of context, "the presumption exists, until rebutted, that it is in the child's best interest to be placed with a parent," Harrell wrote.

Rose, the mother's attorney, said the court "reiterated forcefully that raising one's child is a fundamental liberty interest."

The state's attorney, Assistant Attorney General Nancy C. Hopkins, had not yet read the opinion and declined comment.

The daughter, Yve S., now 12, was removed from her mother's care five years ago after the two led a nomadic -- and, at times, homeless -- existence through several states.

Yve was returned to the custody of her mother, Yvonne, after the mother found a home in North Carolina. But authorities returned the girl to foster care after they discovered her mother had allegedly left her in the care of a "known sex offender."

Yvonne then returned to Maryland and received psychiatric care. Since then, she has successfully been treated for her psychiatric disorders, found a home, kept a job, and developed a stable network of friends, according to the court.

Despite her progress, the state kept Yve in a foster home for fear that Yvonne would relapse.

"There is nothing in the record to suggest a likelihood of future abuse or neglect," Harrell wrote, "nor is there any such finding by the trial judge."

WHAT THE COURT HELD

Case: In Re: Yve S., CA Nos. 24 & 50, Sept. Term 2002. Reported. Opinion by Harrell, J. Filed March 27, 2003.

Issue: Did the juvenile court err in changing a child's permanency plan from reunification to long-term foster care?

Holding: Yes. The best interest of the child standard was misapplied in this case. Juvenile judge's orders were clearly erroneous where evidence at hearings showed no likelihood of future neglect or abuse by parent who had been diagnosed as suffering from mental illness, but was on medication.

Counsel: Asst. PD Peter F. Rose for appellant; Asst. AG Nancy Hopkins for appellee.

Copyright 2003 Dolan Media Newswires
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.