In re Prince S.
PER CURIAM. In 1995, Prince S. was found by the Juvenile Court in Montgomery County to be a child in need of assistance. The court placed Prince under the protective supervision of the Department of Social Services, later renamed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), but directed that his physical custody was to remain with his mother. That situation was confirmed by the court, after review hearings, in December, 1995, and in February, April, and July, 1998.
On August 6, 1998, HHS filed a request for “Statutory Emergency Hearing” seeking an immediate change of placement to a more restrictive environment. Such a hearing was held five days later, at which, through counsel, Prince, his mother, and HHS were present. The basis of the request, as explained by the HHS social worker, was a report she received on July 27 about a series of incidents in which Prince, who was then 10 years old, had been “bullying” younger children in the neighborhood, causing a great deal of resentment and the involvement of the police. It was not clear whether Prince instigated the encounters or, as asserted by his mother, he was reacting to provocations from the other children.
The social worker, who had no personal knowledge of the episodes, seemed concerned only about the child’s safety and the ability of the mother to deal with the immediate problem. She recommended placement in a group home. The home she had in mind was not available for another three days, however, and the social worker said that she would have 229 no objection to the child staying with a particular relative in the meanwhile, although, because the department had not been able to do the required background check on the relative, she could not formally recommend such a placement, even temporarily. Counsel for Prince noted that the child, who was personally present in the courtroom, had some scars on him at that time, including some fresh wounds, but averred that the child wanted to stay with his mother, “despite the fact that he’s getting beaten up all the time.” Counsel for the mother agreed that HHS “has valid concerns about Prince having problems in the neighborhood” but indicated doubt whether he was the aggressor or the victim.
She wanted a full evidentiary hearing to determine that issue. The mother, she said, was willing to let the child stay with relatives but objected to a group home. Her plan to provide protection for Prince was to keep him in the house more. Counsel’s point was that it was inappropriate to put Prince in a group home because of problems in the neighborhood.
The court, without assigning fault, noted everyone’s agreement that the child was in some danger and declared that keeping the child in the house was not the answer. The court directed that Prince stay with the designated relatives until the group home became available and ordered HHS to make an investigation of the
This is a preview of In re Prince S.. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.