Background
The case involves K.B., a minor child who was the subject of Child in Need of Assistance (CINA) proceedings in Worcester County, Maryland. K.B. had been in her grandmother’s custody since 2016. In June 2023, the Department of Social Services petitioned to have K.B. adjudicated a CINA due to concerns about missed medical appointments and academic struggles. Initially, K.B. remained with her grandmother under protective supervision.
Following a magistrate’s recommendation, K.B. was slated for removal from her grandmother’s custody and out-of-home placement. At a subsequent de novo exceptions hearing, the juvenile court, over the objection of K.B.’s counsel, excluded K.B. from the courtroom. The court reasoned that it was not appropriate for K.B. to hear the testimony and that her counsel could represent her interests. The juvenile court affirmed the magistrate’s recommendation, and the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the juvenile court’s decision, finding no abuse of discretion in K.B.’s exclusion.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Maryland held that K.B.’s appeal was moot because, prior to oral argument, the CINA proceedings had been terminated, and custody was restored to her grandmother. However, the Court exercised its discretion to address the merits under the “public importance” exception to the mootness doctrine, citing the critical nature of a minor child’s right to attend and participate in their own CINA proceedings, which can have monumental effects on their care and custody.
The Court clarified that Maryland Rule 11-109 is inapplicable to the issue of a child’s exclusion from CINA proceedings. This Rule governs only a custodian’s obligation to bring a child to a hearing and the court’s authority to “excuse” noncompliance with that obligation, not the affirmative exclusion of a child who is present. Therefore, the lower courts’ reliance on or discussion of Rule 11-109 in the context of exclusion was erroneous.
The Supreme Court held that the juvenile court violated K.B.’s right to procedural due process by excluding her from her own CINA proceeding. The Court established a new test: to exclude a child in a CINA proceeding, consistent with due process and over the child’s counsel’s objection, the juvenile court must make individualized findings that the child’s presence would be harmful to their well-being, that such harm outweighs the child’s due process interests, and that the exclusion is narrowly tailored. Absent such findings, a child can only be excluded if they are disruptive or their attorney waives their participation. Because the juvenile court failed to make the requisite particularized findings regarding K.B., her due process rights were violated, and prejudice was presumed.
Key Takeaways
- An appeal challenging a child’s exclusion from CINA proceedings, though potentially mooted by a change in custody, can be addressed under the “public importance” exception given the significance of a child’s due process rights.
- Maryland Rule 11-109 concerns a custodian’s obligation to bring a child to a hearing and excusal from that obligation; it does not provide authority for a juvenile court to exclude a child from a CINA proceeding.
- Children in CINA proceedings have a fundamental procedural due process right to attend and participate in their hearings.
- Excluding a child from their CINA proceeding, particularly over counsel’s objection, requires the juvenile court to make specific, individualized findings that the child’s presence would be harmful, that this harm outweighs the child’s due process interests, and that the exclusion is narrowly tailored.
- Generalized concerns about a child’s best interest, sensitive testimony, or academic performance are insufficient grounds for exclusion without particularized findings and balancing of interests.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly clarifies and strengthens the procedural due process rights of children involved in Child in Need of Assistance (CINA) proceedings in Maryland. By establishing a stringent test for exclusion, the Supreme Court ensures that juvenile courts cannot remove a child from their own hearing based on generalized assumptions or convenience, but must instead provide specific, evidence-based justifications that prioritize the child’s due process interests.
The ruling also provides crucial guidance on the correct interpretation of Maryland Rule 11-109, preventing its misapplication as a tool for exclusion. This will impact how juvenile courts conduct CINA hearings statewide, compelling them to engage in a more thorough and individualized assessment before limiting a child’s participation, thereby ensuring that children’s voices are heard and their rights are protected in proceedings that directly determine their welfare and future.