In Re Emileigh F.

RAKER, Judge. We must decide in this appeal whether the District Court of Maryland in Montgomery County, sitting as the juvenile court, erred in closing the Child in Need of Assistance case thereby ²⁰⁰ terminating its jurisdiction over Emileigh F. while an appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals. We shall reverse the judgment of the District Court and hold that such action was inconsistent with the matter raised in the pending appeal and was prohibited. Background In April, 1996, pursuant to Md.Code Ann., Cts. & Jud.

Proc. § 3—801(e)(2) (1974, 1998 Repl.Vol.) 1 , the juvenile court adjudicated Emileigh F. a Child in Need of Assistance (hereinafter CIÑA). The court committed her to the care of the Department of Health and Human Services (hereinafter DHHS) and placed her in the custody of her maternal grandmother. In June, 1997, after an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court ordered that custody of Emileigh F. be given to her father. Her mother, Danielle W., noted a timely appeal to the Court of Special Appeals.

Danielle W.’s primary complaint on appeal was that the juvenile court improperly denied her the right to present closing argument. In an unreported opinion, that court affirmed. On June 30, 1998, this Court granted Danielle W.’s petition for a writ of certiorari.. In re Emileigh F., 350 Md. 279 , 711 A.2d 871 (1998).

While the case was pending before this Court, DHHS filed in the juvenile court a Motion for Order of Recission and Termination of juvenile court jurisdiction. On October 28, 1998, the juvenile court held a hearing on the motion. Danielle W. reiterated her desire for custody of Emileigh and objected to the closure of the case. She raised with the court the ramifications of the pending appeal: ²⁰¹ I think we can’t close the case anyway right now, Your Honor, because we do have cert, granted in the Court of Appeals, and we’re waiting to hear if in fact the custody’s going to stand.

My client still believes that her daughter should be with her and she, she hasn’t given up on that yet, Your Honor. The juvenile court found that Emileigh no longer fit the definition of a CINA because her father is willing and able, and has proven since he’s had custody of Emileigh, since August of 1997, we’re now talking about a year and three months later, and there are absolutely no issues. The Department has no concerns, the Department of New Jersey, which supervised when he originally got custody of her, had no concerns and closed their case last May. So, I see absolutely no reason to keep this case open, under the jurisdiction of the Court.

So, I will close it, Emileigh will remain in Mr. F’s care and custody, and I hope she’ll have a long and happy life and that everyone’s able to work out things. In accordance with the oral ruling, the court entered an order that Emileigh is no longer a CINA, that the supervision by DHHS be rescinded, that Emileigh be continued in the care, custody and guardianship of her father, and that the proceedings in the juvenile court be closed. Danielle W. noted a timely appeal, contending that the juvenile court had erred in terminating its jurisdiction over Emileigh F. while an appeal was pending before this Court. On February 18, 1999, this Court, without knowledge that the juvenile court had terminated its jurisdiction, 2 decided the issue in the pending appeal, holding that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied Danielle W. the opportunity for closing argument in the July 1997 CINA proceeding. ²⁰² In re Emileigh F., 353 Md. 30 , 724 A.2d 639 (1999).

On March 10, 1999, we granted certiorari on our own motion to consider the issue raised in Danielle W.’s appeal of the juvenile court’s order terminating jurisdiction—whether the juvenile court erred in terminating its jurisdiction over Emileigh F. while an appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals. Discussion Before this Court, Danielle W. argues that the juvenile court improperly closed the case and terminated its jurisdiction over Emileigh in light of the fact that the question of custody and the fairness of the proceeding determining custody was pending in an appellate court. The juvenile court was well aware that the validity of the custody order was pending in this Court, and that should Danielle W. prevail, a new hearing would be required. The State argues that the trial court retains jurisdiction over a case, notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal, unless its proceedings have been stayed.

The State concedes, however, that were this Court to remand the matter, the juvenile court would be required to reopen its case to reconsider custody. Misreading the record, the State maintains that