Tag Archives: permanency plan

Mr. B. thought he had defeated a bid to terminate his parental rights when the judge in the CINA case kept reunification as his children's permanency plan. But the Department filed a TPR action anyway, and prevailed.

CINA: Permanency plan: Intervening TPR In Re: Jayme K., Kayven K., and Keira K. CSA No. 1899, Sept. Term 2013. Unreported. Opinion by Leahy, J. Filed: July 11, 2014. Appeal from Cecil County. Dismissed.

CINA : Modification of permanency plan: Request for continuance. CSA No. 1484, Sept. Term 2013. Unreported. Opinion by Matricciani, J. Filed: April 1, 2014. Appeal from Montgomery County. Affirmed.

CINA: Change in permanency plan: Concurrent plans CSA No. 0853, Sept. Term 2013. Unreported. Opinion by Nazarian, J. Filed Jan. 30, 2014.

CINA: Change in permanency plan: Incarcerated parent CSA No. 1274, Sept. Term, 2013. Unreported. Opinion by Zarnoch, J. Filed Jan. 29, 2014.

Adoption is better for foster child if parents don’t improve.

CINA: change in permanency plan: reasonable services CSA No. 0290, Sept. Term 2013. Unreported. Opinion by Meredith, J. Filed Dec. 9, 2013. Appeal from Cecil County. Affirmed.

CINA: permanency plan: special-needs child CSA No. 0852, Sept. Term 2013 Unreported. Opinion by Moylan, Charles E., Jr. (Retired, Specially Assigned). Filed Nov. 15, 2013. Appeal from Montgomery County. Affirmed.

CINA: Change in permanency plan: Visitation CSA No. 0098, Sept. Term 2013. Unreported. Opinion by Hotten, J. Filed Oct. 1, 2013.

CINA: Change in permanency plan: Reasonable efforts CSA No. 0221, Sept. Term 2013. Unreported. Opinion by Hotten, J. Filed Oct. 1, 2013.