Maryland Family Law Maryland family law opinions and commentary
RICHMOND, Virginia — A grandmother who violated child protective orders by allowing the parents to vacation with the children, and who, in the opinion of an evaluator, overestimated her ability to meet the demands of the growing children, was not a candidate for permanent placement of the four young children.
Background
Robert Allen Whitmer appeals the permanency planning orders for his four youngest children. Father argues that the circuit court erred by (1) approving the foster care goal of adoption because the Spotsylvania County Department of Social Services did not make reasonable efforts and offer reasonable services to achieve the previously identified goals of relative placement and (2) admitting the testimony about the efforts of Wanda Morris, the maternal grandmother, “to have the Board of Supervisors review this case.”
Foster care goal
Father argues that the circuit court erred by approving the foster care goal of adoption because the department did not offer reasonable services to Morris. Father emphasizes that Morris participated in all of the services offered by the department; however, the department still expressed concern about Morris’ ability to protect the children and to create boundaries with father and mother. Father contends that the department did not offer sufficient services to address its concerns.
Contrary to father’s arguments, the department had provided numerous services to this family, including Morris, since 2015. The department offered Morris parenting classes and therapeutic visitation. The visitation supervisors testified that they did not see any progress being made while they monitored Morris’ visitation with the children over a period of several months and despite the parenting classes.
At the time of the circuit court hearing, the department had been involved with the family for approximately 10 years. Morris had had custody of the children from 2015 through 2017. Child protective orders were in place, and the department repeatedly reminded Morris of the importance of complying with the court’s orders and not allowing the parents to visit with the children in an unsupervised setting. The circuit court was concerned that Morris still did not recognize the problems when she allowed mother and father to vacation with her and the children and to stay at their house, despite the terms and conditions of the 2017 child protective order.
The circuit court also reviewed Morris’ psychological evaluation and the evaluator’s conclusion that Morris “may be overestimating [her] ability to meet the demands growing children can make on a caretaker’s time, energy, and patience over the long run.” Based on the circumstances of this case, the circuit court did not err in approving the foster care goal of adoption. The department had offered services to Morris for years, but she had not demonstrated an ability to protect the children.
Admission of evidence
Father argues that the circuit court erred in allowing Morris to testify about her contact with the board of supervisors. On cross-examination, the department asked Morris whether she notified the board about the case. Mother’s counsel objected based on relevance, and the trial court explained that it did not know what the relevance would be either but allowed her to answer the question. Morris testified that she reported to the board that she thought she was being treated unfairly. The circuit court explained that the board had no control over the courts, and that it was the judge’s job “to decide whether or not (she had) been treated unfairly.” The circuit court instructed counsel to “move on,” because although Morris had “a right to complain to the board of Supervisors about anything she wants to … they don’t have jurisdiction to do anything about it.” Father argues that this line of questioning was irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative.
The record does not reflect that the circuit court attached any weight to Morris’ testimony about the board. In fact, the circuit court seemed to dismiss the testimony, when it told the department to “move on” with its questions and noted that Morris had a right to raise issues with the board. Accordingly, any potential error was harmless.
Affirmed.
Whitmer v. Spotsylvania County Dep’t of Social Services, Record Nos. 0083-19-2 through 0086-19-2, July 23, 2019. CAV (per curiam) from Spotsylvania Cir. Ct. (Ellis). Brian A. Choisser for Appellant, Robert F. Beard for Appellee, Carolyn Seklii for the minor children. VLW No. 019-7-131, 9 pp. Unpublished.
