In Re Adoption/Guardianship of Jasmine D.

WOODWARD, J. On September 5, 2002 Jasmine D. (“Jasmine”) was born to appellant, Stephanie N. (“Ms. N.”) and an unknown father. Jasmine was three years old when she first entered foster care, and has spent over five of her eleven years of life in foster care as a result of Ms. N.’s alcoholism.

Jasmine’s most recent placement in foster care began on November 4, 2009, and continues to the present. On December 2, 2009, Jasmine was adjudicated a Child in Need of Assistance (“CINA”) in the Circuit Court for Howard County, sitting as a juvenile court, and she was placed in the care and custody of appellee, the Howard County Department of Social Services (the “Department”). When its efforts toward reunification with Ms. N. failed, the Department filed a Termination of Parental Rights (“TPR”) petition in the juvenile court on March 18, 2013. After a trial ⁷²¹ held on August 28 and 29, 2013, the juvenile court found that Ms. N. was an unfit parent and that termination of parental rights would be in Jasmine’s best interests, and thus issued an order terminating Ms. N.’s parental rights.

Ms. N. appealed and presents one question for our review: Did the trial court err in terminating [Ms. N.’s] parental rights? We answer this question in the negative and accordingly affirm the judgment of the juvenile court. BACKGROUND Jasmine was first placed in foster care in February 2006 after Ms. N. was found to be intoxicated and unable to care for Jasmine. In July 2006, Jasmine was returned to Ms. N.’s care, but was then removed from October 2006 until January 2007 when Ms. N. “relapsed on alcohol.” From February to May 2008, Jasmine was placed in foster care for a third time, again due to Ms. N.’s problems with alcohol.

Her most recent removal from Ms. N.’s custody began on November 4, 2009. On the morning of November 4, 2009, Mr. L., Ms. N.’s live-in boyfriend, arrived at Jasmine’s elementary school to discuss an incident that had occurred previously between Jasmine and another child. Because Mr. L. was not Jasmine’s parent, the school would not speak with him about Jasmine. Mr. L.’s visit, however, prompted the school principal, Nancy Thompson, to review Jasmine’s enrollment folder, where she discovered that Ms. N. had not provided all of the necessary documents for Jasmine when she was enrolled.

School personnel then called Ms. N. to ask for the missing documents. Ms. N. responded to the phone call by yelling that she did not want Jasmine to be taken away from her. Sometime after the phone call, Ms. N. arrived at Jasmine’s elementary school and demanded to remove Jasmine from her class, reiterating Mr. L.’s complaint about the school’s handling of the issue between Jasmine and another student. Ms. N. was intoxicated, and Thompson noted that the odor of alcohol coming from Ms. N. was “overwhelming.” She also had visible injuries on her face that Ms. N. admitted were the ⁷²² result of a domestic dispute with Mr. L. that had occurred earlier that day.

Ms. N.’s intoxication and her injuries prompted school personnel to call the police. When the police arrived, the officers indicated that they had responded to another domestic violence issue at Ms. N.’s home the previous weekend. Bobby Feher, a Child Protective Services Investigator, also arrived at the school with her supervisor. Feher observed that Ms. N. “clearly smelled of alcohol,” had mud on her jacket, had a bruise and laceration on her face, and was “emotionally augmented throughout the contact with her and her emotions vacillated from crying hysterically, to being belligerent with the officers by calling them ass holes ... [and calling] my supervisor a bitch.” Ms. N. denied drinking alcohol, but admitted that she had taken oxycontin or oxycodone that day for a dental issue.

She refused a breathalyzer when offered. Feher told Ms. N. that Ms. N.’s behavior raised concerns about Jasmine’s safety, and asked if Ms N. could help devise an alternative plan for Jasmine’s care. Ms. N. “became extremely belligerent” at that point, and refused to enter into a safety plan. Because Ms. N. refused to create a safety plan, Feher removed Jasmine from Ms. N.’s care that day, placed the child in a foster home, and filed a shelter care petition.

A shelter care hearing took place the following day. Prior to the hearing, Ms. N. called Feher stating that she could not attend the hearing because she had to go to work. She told Feher that she wanted her daughter back, and admitted to consuming alcohol the previous day. Ms. N., however, was seen near Jasmine’s school at the time of the shelter care hearing, when she had told Feher that she would be at work.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court ordered that Jasmine remain in foster care. On November 16, 2009, Feher visited Ms. N.’s home for a prescheduled visit. She found nothing of concern about the home environment, but noted that Ms. N. again admitted that she had been drinking on the day Jasmine was removed from Ms. N.’s care, and admitted that she had continued to use ⁷²³ alcohol and live with Mr. L. Ms N. also stated that she had initiated alcohol services in the past, but made excuses for not successfully completing them. Feher offered the Department’s services with regard to a substance abuse assessment and toxicology screen, but Ms. N. refused Feher’s help.

Around the time of the shelter care hearing, Ms. N. called the Department stating that she did not want to have visitation with Jasmine because she was embarrassed by the injuries inflicted on her by Mr. L. and did not want Jasmine to see her. On November 19, 2009, Ms. N. called the Department to say that she was still not comfortable visiting Jasmine, noting that Mr. L. was “giving her a hard time.” By this time, Ms. N. had already canceled multiple visits with Jasmine. She left additional messages with the Department the following two days, the first day stating that she loved Jasmine but wanted to give her up for adoption because she was tired of fighting, but the second day asserting that Feher “was not going to be specifying anything about her daughter, [and] that she [was] going to sue the County.” Feher believed Ms. N. had been drinking on the second day. On December 2, 2009, a master recommended that Jasmine be adjudicated CIÑA and placed in the care and custody of the Department.

The juvenile court accepted the master’s recommendations and also ordered Ms. N. to complete a substance abuse assessment, a domestic violence assessment, and a mental health assessment, and to participate in recommended treatment. After the CINA adjudication, on January 11, 2010, Ms. N. began meeting with a psychiatrist, Dr. Daniel D. Storch. On February 24, 2010, Dr. Storch was called to the Howard County General Hospital after Ms. N. threatened to commit suicide. Dr. Storch learned that Ms. N. had a blood alcohol level of .329 and had tested positive for marijuana.

On February 25, 2010, Cheryl Lawson-Anderson, Ms. N.’s social worker at the Department, called Dr. Storch to inform him that she had received at least five to six voicemails from Ms. N. saying that she was going to commit suicide. Dr. ⁷²⁴ Storch met with Ms. N. later that day, and she explained that she had been having a bad week, but that she “got [her] medicine [and] feel[s] 80% better.” Ms. N. stated that she had called the school in addition to Lawson-Anderson to say that she missed her daughter and admitted that she “might have said” she was going to hurt herself. Ms. N. told Dr. Storch that she would not hurt herself, however, and that she would go to counseling and start back in Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”). Dr. Storch completed a psychiatric evaluation for Ms. N. based on their two meetings on January 11 and February 25, 2010, and diagnosed her with mood disorder and alcohol dependence.

Dr. Storch recommended that Ms. N. continue substance abuse treatment and domestic violence counseling, that she attend ninety AA meetings in ninety days, and that she receive psychiatric treatment. On March 2, 2010, Ms. N. entered into a service agreement with the Department, and agreed to maintain contact with Jasmine, complete a psychiatric evaluation, submit to a drug and alcohol evaluation, submit to a domestic violence assessment, provide Jasmine financial support, and provide proof of employment. The Department agreed to arrange regular visits between Jasmine and Ms. N., and to refer Ms. N. to appropriate resources and supportive services. Ms. N. completed the drug and alcohol evaluation, the domestic violence assessment, and had previously completed the psychiatric evaluation through Dr. Storch.

On January 5, 2011, Ms. N. and the Department entered into a second service agreement to ensure that Ms. N. was continuing in therapy and complying with Department recommendations. Ms. N. agreed to continue treatment for alcohol abuse, submit to random drug and alcohol testing, attend domestic violence counseling, and continue to see her psychiatrist and follow all treatment recommendations including participating in AA meetings. Ms. N. partially complied with the requirements of the second service agreement. She met with her therapist, Lana ⁷²⁵ Fink, a clinical social worker at the Howard County Health Department, but missed many of the appointments.

Between July 2010 and October 2012, Scott Alpert, a licensed clinical professional counselor and certified chemical dependency counselor, conducted random drug screening for Ms. N. Ms. N. had nine positive tests for alcohol and refused to take a random test approximately thirty times. 1 Alpert had to temporarily suspend services four times due to her refusal to submit to drug testing. Ms. N. participated in some AA meetings, but complained that the meetings depressed her and made her want to drink. She attended domestic violence classes, but continued her relationship with Mr. L. The Department arranged for Ms. N. to enter inpatient treatment for alcohol dependence four times, but Ms. N. refused each offer, stating that she did not drink. The service agreement also allowed Ms. N. to have supervised visitation with Jasmine once a week for two hours.

Ms. N. missed forty-five of those scheduled visits. From about the time of Ms. N.’s first service agreement with the Department, Jasmine also had been meeting with a therapist. Bertha Carrelli, a clinical social worker and psychotherapist at A Healing Place, met with Jasmine bi-weekly through the date of the TPR hearing on August 28, 2013. From June to September 2011, Carrelli also held family therapy sessions with Ms. N. and Jasmine.

On October 19, 2011, Alpert performed a comprehensive substance abuse assessment of Ms. N. at the request of Lawson-Anderson. Based on his evaluation, Alpert recommended that Ms. N. attend a minimum of twenty-eight days at a residential drug and alcohol treatment facility followed by intensive outpatient treatment for three months. Alpert arranged for Ms. N. to be admitted to an inpatient center, but Ms. N. refused to complete the center’s phone intake, making her ineligible for admission. She also stated she did not need inpatient therapy, because she does not drink.

Around this ⁷²⁶ time, the juvenile court ordered Ms. N. to enter inpatient treatment for her alcohol dependency and suspended supervised visits between Ms. N. and Jasmine until Ms. N. complied with the order. Ms. N. never entered inpatient treatment. Despite Ms. N.’s failure to comply with the court’s order to attend inpatient treatment, in December 2011, the juvenile court again allowed Ms. N. to have supervised visitation with Jasmine. Family therapy sessions had ceased when Ms. N.’s visitation rights were suspended, but in May 2012, the Department requested that family therapy resume.

Jasmine, however, did not want family sessions to begin again, because she worried that Ms. N. would be angry if they talked about Jasmine’s feelings. As a result, the Department did not require family sessions to resume. On August 22, 2012, Jasmine began living with her current foster parents. Shortly thereafter, Jasmine asked that family therapy sessions with Ms. N. resume, and on September 28, 2012, Jasmine and Ms. N. met with Carrelli.

At the session, Jasmine expressed how she felt when Ms. N. was drinking, saying that she felt sad, lonely, and scared. Ms. N. denied having been intoxicated in front of Jasmine. Family sessions were again suspended after Jasmine subsequently requested that they be stopped. On December 6, 2012, the juvenile court ordered a change in Jasmine’s Permanency Plan from reunification with Ms. N. to adoption by her foster family.

On December 26, 2012, the juvenile court again suspended Ms. N.’s supervised visitation with Jasmine until Ms. N. provided documentation to the court that she was receiving mental health treatment. Ms. N. never submitted such documentation, and thus has not seen Jasmine since December of 2012. On March 18, 2013, the Department filed a TPR petition in the juvenile court. Ms. N. filed a Notice of Objection to the TPR petition on April 8, 2013, which stated, “I am a very good mother and I don’t drink.

I want my daughter back.” The TPR trial was conducted on August 28 and 29, 2013. Jasmine, ⁷²⁷ through counsel, supported termination of Ms. N.’s parental rights. Ms. N. was not present at either day of the trial. Feher testified on behalf of the Department, and stated that Ms. N. sometimes called Department multiple times in a day, leaving messages that became increasingly erratic as the day progressed, leading Feher to suspect that Ms. N. had been drinking.

In the messages, Ms. N. would state that she loved her daughter and could not live without her, then state that Jasmine should be taken away from her, and finally pronounce that she was going to kill herself. Feher testified that alcohol use, denial of alcohol as an issue, and domestic violence were consistent factors in Ms. N.’s history with the Department. Lawson-Anderson also testified on behalf of the Department, corroborating Feher’s testimony that when Ms. N. drinks, she would call the Department and leave disturbing and offensive phone messages. She stated that the primary barrier to Jasmine’s reunification with Ms. N. was Ms. N.’s drinking problem and her denial of drinking as an issue.

Carrelli was accepted as an expert in the field of clinical social work and testified on behalf of the Department. She stated that it took Jasmine some time to open up, but that Jasmine eventually expressed sadness about being in foster care, and sadness and disappointment about Ms. N.’s missing supervised visits. Jasmine also told Carrelli that she was concerned about being reunited with Ms. N., because Ms. N. had told Jasmine that they would leave Maryland once Jasmine was returned to her, and she did not like Ms. N. and Mr. L. fighting. By the end of 2012, Carrelli testified that Jasmine expressed her desire to be adopted by her current foster family, but that she may want to see Ms. N. again in the future.

Fink was accepted by the court as an expert licensed clinical social worker, and testified on behalf of Ms. N. Fink testified that Ms. N. never developed insight into the issues that required her to attend counseling. She stated that, although Ms. N. “came [to appointments] on a regular basis for a considerable amount of time,” Ms. N.’s attendance at therapy became less consistent as time progressed. ⁷²⁸ Paula S. (“Ms. S.”), one of Jasmine’s foster parents, also testified at the hearing, and stated that Jasmine was doing well living in her home. Ms. S. stated that, since moving to her current foster home, Jasmine has received A’s in school, developed friendships with her peers, and bonded with her foster parents and their extended families.

She stated that she and her partner would adopt Jasmine if it became an option. At the end of the trial, the juvenile court issued an oral order terminating Ms. N.’s parental rights. 2 The order terminating Ms. N.’s parental rights was entered on August 30, 2013, and Ms. N. noted a timely appeal on September 18, 2013. THE JUVENILE COURT’S DECISION The juvenile court gave a detailed summary of the testimony it found credible, and then considered each of the required statutory factors for TPR proceedings under Maryland Code (1984, 2012 Repl.Vol), § 5-323(d) of the Family Law Article (“FL”). The court specifically determined that, “by clear and convincing evidence [ ] the facts have demonstrated an unfitness of Ms. N[.] to remain in a parental relationship with her child.... ” The court cited Feher’s testimony concerning the events of November 4, 2009 when Ms. N. arrived at Jasmine’s elementary school intoxicated, belligerent, and visibly injured from a recent domestic dispute.

The court discussed Ms. N.’s multiple failures and refusals of tests for alcohol use, her inappropriate phone calls to the Department made when intoxicated, in which she threatened to hurt herself and others, and the fact that Ms. N. was “never able to be sober enough to have unsupervised visits with Jasmine and that’s during the entire time that she’s [been] in [foster] care from 2006.” In addition, the court considered Ms. N.’s consistent failure to begin or complete recommended and required treatment for her alcohol dependency, despite the Department’s multiple attempts to facilitate such treatment. Carrelli’s testimony ⁷²⁹ was cited as evidence that Jasmine was apprehensive about reuniting with her mother, and the court noted that Ms. N.’s own witness, Fink, stated that Ms. N.’s prognosis for improvement was not good, because Ms. N. refused to accept that she had a problem with alcohol. After setting forth the above testimony supporting Ms. N.’s unfitness as a parent, the juvenile court methodically discussed each factor under FL § 5—323(d). We present a summary of the court’s analysis, findings, and conclusions below.

FL § 5~323(d)(l)(i)—Services offered to the parent before the child’s placement The trial court offered a history of the Department’s role in Jasmine and Ms. N.’s life, noting that Jasmine had been placed in foster care three times prior to her most recent removal from Ms. N.’s home in 2009. Each of Jasmine’s removals was due to Ms. N.’s intoxication and consequent inability to take care of Jasmine. Each time the Department placed Jasmine in foster care, Ms. N. was offered services including, at various times, mental health counseling, a detoxification program, random urinalysis testing, and a substance abuse assessment. The trial court found “by clear and convincing evidence that under the circumstances, the Department’s attempts at addressing the mother’s problem at its inception and prior to coming into care were appropriate.” FL § 5-323(d)(l)(ii)-The extent, nature, and timeliness of services offered to facilitate reunion of the parent and child In consideration of the extent, nature, and timeliness of services offered to Ms. N. to help her work toward reunification with Jasmine, the trial court stated: There was Health Department treatment, resources provided, [Ms. N.] was given [a] list of resources, there was four requests for in-patient, the funds were expended for taxis for visitation services, for alcohol services, substance abuse testing, psychiatric evaluations, psychological evaluations.

Despite all of these resources, there’s been no progress or no significant progress by the mother. ⁷³⁰ She’s had periods of sobriety and other periods of not complying with treatment. At one point, the Court also stopped visitation in December of 2012 until there was an engagement into treatment and Ms. N. still, to this day, has not taken advantage of that. So there’s been many, many resources expended by the local department in order to facilitate reunification. (Emphasis added).

FL § 5—323(d)(l)(iii)—The extent to which the Department and parent