In re Harry H.

MURPHY, Judge. The Circuit Court for Montgomery County (McKenna, J.) terminated the parental rights of the natural parents of Harry H. and Nicole H. The natural parents sought visitation ⁶⁸ pending appellate review. Their request was granted by the District Court of Maryland. We hold that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to grant that request.

BACKGROUND On December 18, 1989, Harry H. was adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA). At that time he was eighteen months old. On September 27, 1991, Harry’s sister Nicole H. was adjudicated CINA. She was then one year old.

On September 1, 1993, the circuit court terminated parental rights. In a per curiam opinion filed on November 4,1994, we affirmed the judgment in that case. In re: Adoption/Guardianship Nos. 1088 and 1089 in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, No. 337, September Term, 1994. Because the CINA proceedings had taken place in the District Court, the natural parents asked that court to grant them visitation pending appeal of their termination of the parental rights case.

That request was granted. Two questions 1 are presented for our review: 1) Pursuant to Family Law Article § l-201(d), did the juvenile court lack jurisdiction to issue an order governing visitation between the parents and their minor children following the equity court’s termination of parental rights? 2) If the juvenile court retained jurisdiction, did it nonetheless abuse its discretion by ordering visitation without reviewing current evidence as to whether visitation is in the children’s best interest? FL § l-201(d) provides: (d) Termination of jurisdiction of juvenile court.—If an adoption or guardianship with the right to consent to adoption or long term care short of adoption is ordered by the equity court, as to a child previously adjudicated to be a ⁶⁹ child in need of assistance, a neglected child, an abused child, or a dependent child, the jurisdiction of a juvenile court with regard to these issues is terminated. The juvenile court decided that it maintained jurisdiction pending appeal.

That decision was wrong. It is clear to us that the legislature intended for the juvenile court’s jurisdiction to terminate “if an adoption or guardianship with the right to consent to adoption or long-term care short of adoption is ordered by the