In re Michael G.

DAVIS, Judge. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, sitting as a juvenile court, in which Michael G. was determined to be a child in need of assistance. Michael’s mother, appellant Carol G., noted a timely appeal from that ruling and presents a single question for our review: I. Did the trial court improperly find Michael G. to be a child in need of assistance based upon inadmissible hearsay? FACTS The following facts are gleaned from the record and from the juvenile master’s report and recommendation. 1 On August 1, 1994, appellee Prince George’s County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed an emergency petition in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County alleging that Michael G. was a child in need of assistance (CINA).

Michael was five years old at the time. A hearing was held before a juvenile master on September 7, 1994. Officer Dee Thomas testified that, at approximately 10:15 a.m. on July 29,1994, she responded to appellant Carol G.’s home to investigate a call regarding a juvenile allegedly with a weapon. Michael answered the door of the home and the officer soon realized that Michael was alone.

According to Officer Thomas, Michael was vaguely aware that his mother was a security guard and stated that she periodically calls him during the day. Michael was clothed, and had a snack, lunch, and a drink for the day. Unable to locate anyone who could take responsibility for Michael, Officer Thomas took Michael to the police station where he was later picked up by Rico Williams-Nared, a social worker for the DSS. When Officer Thomas returned to the apartment at the end of her shift between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m., she observed that the paperwork for Michael was still in the door where she had left it. ²⁶¹ Ms. Williams-Nared testified that, before she picked up Michael from the police station, she discovered that there had been three prior neglect referrals relating to Michael, dating from February of 1993 to October of 1993.

The DSS had followed up on at least one of the referrals and its interest in Michael had been closed in February of 1994. Michael told Ms. Williams-Nared that his mother worked in security and that he did not know her telephone number. Michael also stated that Rosetta Brooks was his regular babysitter but that no one was watching him that day and no one was there when he awakened that morning. Michael stated that he was not afraid to be left alone.

After the shelter care hearing held on August 1, Ms. Williams-Nared spoke with appellant outside the courtroom for thirty to forty-five minutes. Ms. Williams-Nared testified that, during this interview, appellant gave conflicting accounts of why Michael was left alone on July 29. Appellant first said that she did not have enough money to pay for child care and that she had to leave Michael alone that day. When questioned about receiving DSS day care vouchers, however, appellant then said that she had hired an eighteen-year-old to babysit Michael.

Later, appellant stated again that she could not afford child care and that she left Michael lunch and called him periodically throughout the day. Appellant also stated that the system penalizes her because she cannot afford childcare. On cross-examination, Ms. Williams-Nared admitted that she did not contact either Ms. Brooks or Jonna Kelly, another babysitter whom appellant had mentioned. She also did not contact the eighteen-year-old babysitter, whose name she had learned was Lavona Johnson.

Appellant testified that Ms. Kelly had been Michael’s regular babysitter until she began having trouble paying Ms. Kelly regularly. Because Ms. Johnson cost less money, she began to let Ms. Johnson care for Michael. Appellant stated that Ms. Johnson slept over on the night of July 28 and was there when appellant left for work on July 29. ²⁶² Ms. Kelly testified on behalf of appellant. Ms. Kelly stated that she had been Michael’s regular babysitter from February 14, 1994 until the end of July when appellant’s day care vouchers from DSS were up for renewal.

She testified that appellant asked her to help renew the vouchers and that she did so. Ms. Kelly was on vacation from July 24 to 29 and stated that the last date on which she actually saw Michael was on July 22. Appellant’s lawyer stated that he had been unable to locate Ms. Johnson to subpoena her as a witness. The master took “judicial notice” of a prior CIÑA case involving Michael over which she had presided in May of 1993. 2 The master stated that the prior case before the Court involved virtually the exact same circumstances, including, the Court notes, the same type of explanation from Ms. G[ ], that there was a babysitter, that the person was there when Ms. G[ ] left for work, and that for whatever reasons that person left the home.

It is unrefuted that Michael was found alone in the home and that the person who was the babysitter disappeared and could not be found as a witness for the Court case.... The Court had the advantage of her notes from the prior hearing. It is observed that Ms. G[ ]’s testimony is almost a carbon copy of her prior testimony in her other hearing. This Court does not believe that there was an 18 year old babysitter there.... ²⁶³ The master also stated that “if anyone should have been hypervigilant about this child being with a licensed day care provider at all times when she was not with him, this person should have been Ms. G[ ].” Although the master found that the basis for appellant’s babysitting problem was a “function of what her wages are,” the master recommended that Michael be committed to the care and custody of the DSS.

The master recommended that physical custody of Michael remain with his mother in light of her new living arrangement. 3 Appellant filed exceptions to the master’s recommendations, and an exceptions hearing was held on October 14, 1994. Appellant argued that Michael’s out-of-court statements to Officer Thomas and to Ms. Williams-Nared were improperly admitted as statements by a party-opponent. 4 After hearing argument on the issue, the court ruled that the master did not err in admitting Michael’s statements to the police officer and to the social worker and overruled appellant’s exceptions. This appeal followed. LEGAL ANALYSIS A child in need of assistance is defined as a child needing court protection because he or she (1) ... is not receiving ordinary and proper care and attention, and (2) His [or her] parents, guardian, or custodian are unable or unwilling to give proper care and attention to the child and his [or her] problems____ Md.Code Ann., Cts. & Jud.Proc.

(CJP) § 3-801(e) (1995 Repl. Vol.). An allegation that a child is a CINA must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. CJP § 3-819(d); Md.Rule 914.e.3; In re Joseph G., 94 Md.App. 343, 347 , 617 A.2d 1086 ²⁶⁴ (1993).

We -will not set aside a lower court’s adjudication of CINA unless the determination was clearly erroneous. Joseph G., 94 Md.App. at 346 , 617 A.2d 1086 . The roles of the master and the chancellor in juvenile proceedings are well-established. Under CJP § 3-813 and Maryland Rule 911, a master for juvenile causes is expressly authorized to conduct hearings.

CJP § 3-813(b); Md.Rule 911.a; In re Michael W., 89 Md.App. 612, 618 , 599 A.2d 458 (1991). See also CJP § 3-813(a)(2)(i) (discussing the authority of a master in Prince George’s County). The master must make written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations with respect to adjudication and disposition. CJP § 3-813(b); Md.Rule 911.b.

The master’s findings and recommendations, however, are not final orders of the court. CJP § 3-813(d). It is the chancellor’s role, and not the master’s, to determine the ultimate rights of the parties. Lemley v. Lemley, 102 Md.App. 266, 277 , 649 A.2d 1119 (1994); Michael W., 89 Md.App. at 618 , 599 A.2d 458 .

After the master submits his or her recommendations to the juvenile court, any party may file exceptions to the master’s recommendations. CJP § 3—813(c); Md.Rule 911.c. The exceptions must be in writing, specify the items to which the party objects, and indicate whether the hearing on the exceptions is to be de novo or on the record. CJP § 3-813(c)(2); Md.Rule 911.c.

Although the chancellor must exercise his or her independent judgment in ruling on the party’s exceptions, see Lemley, 102 Md.App. at 277 , 649 A.2d 1119 , the exceptions hearing is limited only to those matters to which exceptions have been taken. CJP § 3—813(c)(4); Md.Rule 911.c; Michael W., 89 Md.App. at 619 , 599 A.2d 458 . In the case sub judice, appellant excepted only “to the Recommendations” of the master and requested a “hearing on the record.” At the exceptions hearing, appellant argued that the master improperly admitted Michael’s statements to Officer Williams and to Ms. Williams-Nared as statements by a party-opponent. Although the court did not rule on whether Michael’s out-of-court statements were properly admitted un ²⁶⁵ der the party-opponent exception to the hearsay rule, it concluded simply “that the master did not err” in admitting the statements. 5 In a case tried by the court, we review the case on both the law and the evidence and will not set aside the court’s ruling on the evidence unless clearly erroneous.

Md.Rule 8-131(c). Because the issue to which appellant excepted and on which the court ruled was a purely legal issue, however, our review is expansive. See Jensen v. Jensen, 103 Md.App. 678, 687 , 654 A.2d 914 (1995) (a chancellor’s ruling on a purely narrow issue of law is not entitled to deference); Bagley v. Bagley, 98 Md.App. 18, 34 , 632 A.2d 229 (1993), cert. denied, 334 Md. 18 , 637 A.2d 1191 (1994) (“Appellate review of a question of law does not trigger the clearly erroneous rule.”). In general, the rules of