In Re Tamara R.

²⁴⁰ ADKINS, Judge. In this appeal we are asked to decide the jurisdiction of the juvenile court to grant sibling visitation in a CINA proceeding, and to balance the sibling’s need for visitation against the constitutional rights of a parent who opposes it. Tamara R. (“Tamara”), appellant, a child found to be in need of assistance (“CINA”), petitioned the juvenile court for visitation with her brother and her half-sister, who remained in the care and custody of their father and have never been found to be in need of assistance. 1 On appeal, appellant contends that the Circuit Court for Saint Mary’s County, sitting as a juvenile court, erred in ruling that (1) it did not have jurisdiction to entertain her petition for visitation; and (2) a grant to Tamara of the right to visit with her siblings would unduly interfere with the constitutional right of her father to raise his other children as he saw fit.

FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS On August 11,1999, the Saint Mary’s County Department of Social Services (“DSS”), filed a petition alleging that Tamara, age 14, was a CINA. The petition was based on Tamara’s allegations of sexual abuse by her father. Before the September 22, 1999 adjudication hearing, Tamara recanted, and then reasserted her allegations of sexual abuse. At the hearing before a master, the allegations of sexual abuse were not resolved because the parties agreed that appellant was a CINA due to “the special needs of the child and parent/child conflict.” A disposition hearing was held on November 17, 1999.

At the hearing, the master recommended that DSS be given care ²⁴¹ and custody of Tamara and that DSS should facilitate an appropriate schedule for Tamara to visit with her siblings. On December 8, 1999, the master recommended that Tamara “have visitation with her siblings twice a month.... ” Tamara’s father timely noted exceptions to this recommendation. The father contended, inter alia, that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over appellant’s siblings because they were never adjudicated GINA, and that a grant of visitation would interfere with his constitutional rights to raise his own children as he saw fit. On February 11, 2000, a hearing was held on the father’s exceptions.

During the hearing, exhibits were introduced into evidence that indicated that it would be beneficial for appellant to have visitation with her siblings. Tamara’s therapist reported: Given [the] allegations of sexual abuse and the resulting circumstances, it is my impression that Tamara is experiencing a great deal of anger, sadness, betrayal and confusion. She has lost daily contact with her nuclear family, and she especially misses interacting with her siblings. Since Tamara has not been able to see her brothers and sister regularly, she misses them very much, which has further contributed to her feelings of depression and isolation.

I believe it would be to Tamara’s therapeutic benefit to have regular visitation with her siblings; the regular contact with them would provide her with some of the family interaction she has lost, and would help her by supporting the continuation of the sibling relationship. The court, however, did not address the merits of Tamara’s petition for visitation because it ruled that (1) it did not have jurisdiction over appellant’s siblings; and (2) an order for visitation would interfere with the constitutional rights of Mr. R. [TJhere is no authority to exercise and extend the jurisdiction [of the juvenile court] over siblings who are not already before the Juvenile Court under any proceedings ... the siblings being the ones who [appellant] wishes to visit with. ²⁴² The [c]ourt further finds that the extension of jurisdiction to allow the [cjourt to order visitation ... would undermine clearly ... the relationship between the [appellant], and her father and the entire family unit by ... forcing a parent who is otherwise raising his children as he sees fit, [and to order visitation] would indicate that this is not in the best interest of the whole family unit, and that is what this is all about. And the [c]ourt, therefore, cannot, under any existing law or authority in this case, I think there are serious constitutional questions as to [the father’s] right under these proceedings and in this particular environment.... Yes, there is a provision in the law that allows a petition by any sibling to have visitation with another, but that has to be generated by the siblings [not adjudicated CINA]....

In this case it is not. And it flies in the face of this family unit and trying to get this family back together.... In this [c]ourt’s opinion there is no justification legally to court order and force the visitation of minor children who are in the custody of a parent who is presumed to be raising them in the manner in which he sees fit.... Additional facts will be added as necessary to our discussion.

DISCUSSION Tamara contends that the juvenile court erred in ruling that it did not have jurisdiction, and that granting visitation rights would not interfere with her father’s constitutional rights as a parent. We agree that the juvenile court did have jurisdiction, and conclude that Mr. R.’s constitutional rights as a parent would not necessarily have been interfered with by a grant of visitation. A. Jurisdiction Of Juvenile Court Tamara relies on Md.Code (1984,1999 Repl.Vol.), Section 5-525.2 of the Family Law Article (“FL”), which provides: ²⁴³ (a) Petition for visitation rights.—Any siblings who are separated due to a foster care or adoptive placement may petition a court, including a juvenile court with jurisdiction over one or more of the siblings, for reasonable sibling visitation rights. (b) Role of court.—If a petitioner under this section petitions a court to issue a visitation decree or to amend an order, the court: (1) may hold a hearing to determine whether visitation is in the best interest of the children; (2) shall weigh the relative interest of each child and base its decision on the best interest of the children promoting the greatest welfare and least harm to the children; and (3) may issue an appropriate order or decree.

Tamara contends that section 5-525.2 confers jurisdiction upon the juvenile court in this instance. Mr. R., on the other hand, contends that “a much sounder interpretation of the statute would deem that it is designed to ‘provide a mechanism for interested non-[party] siblings who have a sibling under the jurisdiction of the [jjuvenile [cjourt ... to file in that child’s GINA case and ask the court to give them visitation.’ ” The cardinal rule in statutory construction is to ascertain and carry out the true intention of the legislature. See Hyle v. Motor Vehicle Admin., 348 Md. 143, 148 , 702 A.2d 760 (1997). In determining legislative intention, we look to the general purpose, aim, or policy behind the statute.

See Condon v. State-Univ. of Maryland, 332 Md. 481, 491 , 632 A.2d 753 (1993). Ordinarily, we look to the words of the statute to determine its intent. See Gordon Family P’ship v. Gar on Jer, 348 Md. 129, 137 , 702 A.2d 753 (1997). “On the other hand, while the language of the statute is the primary source for determining the legislative intention, the plain meaning rule of construction is not absolute; rather, the statute must be construed reasonably with reference to the purpose, aim, or policy of the enacting body.” Tracey v. Tracey, 328 Md. 380, 387 , 614 A.2d 590 (1992). Indeed, a ²⁴⁴ statute’s purpose “ ‘is a more important aid to the meaning than any rule which grammar or formal logic may lay down.’ ” Kaczorowski v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 514 , 525 A.2d 628 (1987) (quoting United States v. Whitridge, 197 U.S. 135, 143 , 25 S.Ct. 406, 408 , 49 L.Ed. 696 (1905)).

We will not interpret a statute in isolation; but rather, we will look to the statutory scheme as a whole because legislative intention “is to be discerned by considering [a statute] in light of the statutory scheme.” GEICO v. Ins. Comm’r, 332 Md. 124, 132 , 630 A.2d 713 (1993). In this instance, we find that the plain language and the statutory purpose are consistent, and that both support Tamara’s position that the juvenile court has jurisdiction to consider her petition for visitation with her siblings. Section 5-525.2 gives a juvenile court jurisdiction to decide visitation rights with siblings who are separated if it has jurisdiction “over one or more of the siblings.” Here, the juvenile court had jurisdiction over Tamara.

A plain reading of the statute causes us to reject the limitation requested by appellee—that the court must have jurisdiction over the sibling being visited, rather than the sibling petitioning for visitation. Had the legislature intended to so limit jurisdiction, it would have placed the words “with the sibling or siblings adjudicated CINA” at the end of subpart (a) of section 5-525.2, following “for reasonable sibling visitation rights.” In the absence of such language, the plain meaning of the words is that siblings who are separated by foster care or adoptive placement may petition for visitation with each other, regardless of whether they have all been adjudicated CINA. Appellee argues that the legislative history reported in the Session Review, a summary of the legislative session prepared by the Department of Legislative Reference, supports its view that in order for the juvenile court to order that a child be visited without the child requesting it, the court must have adjudicated the child a CINA. He relies on the italicized language in the following excerpt from the Session Review: ²⁴⁵ tinder current law, an equity court has broad authority to grant visitation rights to any person in an appropriate case.

There is apparently some confusion as to whether this authority extends to [the] juvenile court. This bill is intended to clarify that when a juvenile court has jurisdiction over children, the court may grant reasonable sibling visitation rights if it is in the best interest of the children. Department of Legislative Reference, Legislative Session Review, 1994, p. 211 (emphasis added). We do not read the Session Review in the same manner as appellant.

The Session Review simply makes a general statement referring to “children” under the court’s jurisdiction, and makes no particular comment on whether all of the children must be adjudicated CINA before the court can entertain a visitation order. We do not see the language in the Session Review as inconsistent with the clear language of section 5-525.2, allowing such visitation when there is jurisdiction over “one or more of the siblings.” Mr. R. further argues that interpreting section 5-525.2 to confer jurisdiction in this case is inconsistent with the statute conferring general jurisdiction for juvenile courts. Relying on Md.Code (1974, 1998 Repl.Vol.), section 3-804 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJ”), he contends that under section 3-804, the only way a juvenile court can obtain jurisdiction is by a petition asking the court to adjudicate the child as delinquent, in need of supervision, or in need of assistance. 2 Because there has been no such petition with respect to Mary ²⁴⁶ and Jonathan, he contends, the juvenile court does not have the jurisdiction to subject them to a visitation order. Mr. R.’s approach takes an unduly narrow view of a juvenile court’s role with respect to the family once it has acquired jurisdiction over a CINA child, and ignores the traditional role of children in a custody or visitation proceeding.

In a family law proceeding that does not involve a CINA, the children are not required to be parties when custody or visitation is decided. See Auclair v. Auclair, 127 Md.App. 1, 13 , 730 A.2d 1260 (1999). The court must focus on the best interests of the children. Unless a guardian ad litem is appointed, the children’s interests are presumed to be represented by their respective parents.

See Smith v. Organization of Foster Families for Equity & Reform, 431 U.S. 816, 841, n. 44 , 97 S.Ct. 2094 , 2108 n. 44, 53 L.Ed.2d 14 (1977) (“[children’s] interest is ordinarily represented in litigation by parents or guardians”). The children’s status should be no different when a juvenile court is given jurisdiction to decide a visitation matter concerning a child adjudicated a CINA. In a CINA proceeding, the CINA’s parent is a party. See CJ § 3-801(r) (the definition of “party” includes the child’s parent).

As the parent of Jonathan and Mary, Mr. R. was in a position to advance any arguments that the visitation with Tamara was not in their best interests. There is no requirement in the statute or otherwise in law that Jonathan and Mary be adjudicated CINA before the juvenile court can issue an order directing their father to allow visitation with them. Mr. R. argues that because his wife (“Mrs. R.”), Tamara’s step-mother and the mother of Mary, is not permitted to be a party to a juvenile court proceeding, the question of visitation should be decided by an equity court, which would permit her intervention. This contention misses the mark.

Mrs. R., as Mary’s parent, has a constitutionally protected interest in the issue of whether or not visitation with Mary is permitted, and on what terms. See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 , 120 S.Ct. 2054, 2062 , 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000). Thus, she has a right to intervene in the proceedings. See In re ²⁴⁷ Adoption/Guardianship No. 6Z970003, 127 McLApp. 33, 50, 731 A.2d 467 (1999), overruled in part on other grounds, In re Adoption/Guardianship No. T97036005, 358 Md. 1 , 746 A.2d 379 (2000) (child has right to due process hearing in proceeding to terminate his parent’s rights because he has constitutional liberty interest in relationship with parent); Md. Rule 2-214(a)(intervention of right).

In fact, Mrs. R. is a necessary party with respect to any order addressing visitation with Mary. See Fairbanks v. McCarter, 330 Md. 39, 45 , 622 A.2d 121 (1993) 3 ; Md. Rule 2-211(a) (required joinder of parties). The authority of the juvenile court to issue an order “directing, restraining, or otherwise controlling the conduct of a person who is properly before the court” is set forth in CJ section 3-827. The juvenile court has such authority if it finds, inter alia, that the order “will assist in the rehabilitation of or is necessary for the welfare of the child.” Id. at § 3-827(1)(iii).

We reject Mr. R.’s argument that Mrs. R. could not be a person “properly before the court,” because we think that Family Law section 2-525.2, and her interest in the subject matter of visitation with her daughter qualify her for that status, provided that she is properly served or she voluntarily appears in the case. The limitation urged by Mr. R. on the jurisdiction of the juvenile court in matters of sibling visitation would diminish the ability of the juvenile court to grant full protection and services to a CINA child, and is not justified by any provision in the Juvenile Causes subtitle. See CJ § 3-801, et seq. The Juvenile Causes subtitle, by its terms, “shall be liberally construed to effectuate [its] purposes.” CJ § 3—802(b).

Under section 3-820(c)(1), “in making a disposition on a petition, the [juvenile court] may ... order the child, parents, guardian or custodian of the child to participate in rehabilitative services that are in the best interest of the child and the family.” Clearly, the juvenile court is directed to consider the best ²⁴⁸ interests of both the child adjudicated a CIÑA, as well as the other children in the family. The specific delineation of authority for the juvenile court to award visitation with siblings added by the 1994 enactment of section 5-525.2 of the Family Law Article is consistent with section 3-820(c)(1) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article governing remedial services in the best interest of the entire family. It is also consistent with section 5—313(c)(2)(iii) of the Family Law Article, which provides that in terminating parental rights, the court must make findings on several enumerated factors, including “the child’s feelings toward and emotional ties with ... the child’s siblings.” For the above reasons, we hold that the trial court erred in holding that it did not, sitting as a juvenile court, have jurisdiction to consider Tamara’s petition to visit with her siblings who remained within the custody and control of her father, Mr. R. B. Mr. R.’s Constitutional Rights As A Parent The trial court also concluded that, even if it had jurisdiction, it would be improper to exercise it because “there is no justification legally to court order and force the visitation of minor children who are in the custody of a parent who is presumed to be raising them in the manner in which he sees fit.” We interpret the court’s ruling to be addressing Mr. R.’s constitutional rights as a parent, and Mr. R., who agrees with this interpretation, urges that we affirm the trial court on this alternative ground. We cannot evaluate this' issue without examining the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 , 120 S.Ct. 2054 , 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000).

Troxel involved the constitutionality of court-ordered grandparent visitation with grandchildren, and held unconstitutional a “breathtakingly broad” Washington statute which allowed “any person [to] petition the court for visitation rights at any time,” and premised resolution of such petitions upon “the best interest of the child.” Id. at 2061. The court’s rationale in that ²⁴⁹ decision, enunciated by a plurality opinion written by Justice O’Connor, raises, but does not resolve, questions about court-ordered visitation with a minor child by a sibling. Although, as we discuss infra, sibling visitation raises some different concerns from grandparent visitation, the concerns regarding a parent’s constitutional rights to make decisions regarding his or her children are common to both. The Troxel Court reviewed extensive precedent regarding parental rights and concluded that “the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.” Id. at 2060.

Resting on this principle, the Court found the Washington statute unconstitutional, assigning several reasons. First, it held that in the absence of an allegation that Granville was an unfit parent, the presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children must be applied. See id. at 2061. The Court further explained that “[tjhe problem here is not that the Washington Superior Court intervened, but that when it did so, it gave no special weight at all to Granville’s determination of her daughters’ best interests.” Id. at 2062.

Indeed, the trial court “applied exactly the opposite presumption,” id., placing the burden on the parent to show that visitation would have an adverse impact on the children. Regarding the importance of the parent’s decision, the Court said: In an ideal world, parents might always seek to cultivate the bonds between grandparents and their grandchildren. Needless to say, however, our world is far from perfect, and in it the decision whether such an intergenerational relationship would be beneficial in any specific case is for the parent to make in the first instance. And, if a fit parent’s decision of the kind at issue here becomes subject to judicial review, the court must accord at least some special weight to the parent’s own determination.

Id. The Supreme Court also found significant that there was no allegation that Granville ever sought to cut off visitation entirely. Rather, Granville only sought to restrict grandparent ²⁵⁰ visitation to one short visit per month and special holidays. Examining the facts of the case, the Court found that the trial court’s order “was not founded on any special factors that might justify the State’s interference with Granville’s fundamental right to make decisions concerning the rearing of her two daughters.” Id. at 2061.

It observed that the trial court made only two formal findings in support of its visitation order. First, the Troxels ‘are part of a large, central, loving family, all located in this area, and the [Troxels] can provide opportunities for the children in the areas of cousins and music.’ Second, ‘the children would be benefitted from spending quality time with the [Troxels], provided that time is balanced with time with the childrens’ [sic] nuclear family.’ These slender findings, in combination with the court’s announced presumption in favor of grandparent visitation and its failure to accord significant weight to Granville’s already having offered meaningful visitation to the Troxels, show that this case involves nothing more than a simple disagreement between the [trial court] and Granville concerning her children’s best interests. Id. at 2063. The Supreme Court signaled that its decision might have been different had either the statute or decisional law required something more than a mere disagreement between the parent and the court about what was better for the child: [T]he Due Process Clause does not permit a State to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make childrearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a ‘better’ decision could be made.

Neither the Washington nonparental visitation statute generally—which places no limits on either the persons who may petition for visitation or the circumstances in which such a petition may be granted—nor the [trial court] in this specific case required anything more. Accordingly, we hold [the Washington statute], as applied in this case, is unconstitutional. Id. at 2063-64. It also did not, and considered that it “need not, define ... the precise scope of the parental due process right in the visitation context.” Id. at 2064. ²⁵¹ Significantly for our decision in this case, the Supreme Court declined to decide that all non-parental visitation statutes are unconstitutional on their face.

Instead, the plurality opinion cautiously stated: We agree with Justice Kennedy 4 that the constitutionality of any standard for awarding visitation turns on the specific manner in which that standard is applied.... Because much state-court adjudication in this context occurs on a case-by-case basis, we would be hesitant to hold that specific nonparental visitation statutes violate the Due Process Clause as a per se matter. See, e.g., Fairbanks v. McCarter, 330 Md. 39, 49-50 , 622 A.2d 121 (1993). Id. at 2064.

We read the opinion to say that if there are sufficient