Summary
The Maryland Court of Appeals considered whether the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene could appeal a juvenile court order concerning continued services for a medically fragile child transitioning from juvenile guardianship care to adult guardianship care. The Court held that the order was immediately appealable, that the juvenile court had jurisdiction and statutory authority to require development and approval of a clinically appropriate services plan, and that the order did not violate separation of powers.
Holdings
- The juvenile court's September 27, 2013 order was immediately appealable at a minimum as an interlocutory order granting injunctive relief under Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 12-303(3)(i). The Court of Special Appeals therefore erred by dismissing DHMH's appeal.
- The juvenile court had jurisdiction and statutory authority to order DHMH, before Dustin reached age twenty-one, to develop and approve a written plan of clinically appropriate services in the least restrictive setting and to ensure continuation of services needed to protect Dustin's health and welfare after the juvenile guardianship case ended.
- The juvenile court's order did not violate the separation of powers under Article 8 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights because the court acted pursuant to express statutory authority.
Questions Presented
- Whether the juvenile court's September 27, 2013 order was immediately appealable as an interlocutory order granting injunctive relief.
- Whether the juvenile court had jurisdiction and statutory authority, before Dustin reached age twenty-one, to order DHMH to develop, approve, and implement a plan of clinically appropriate services in the least restrictive setting that would continue after the juvenile guardianship case ended.
- Whether the juvenile court's order violated the separation of powers under Article 8 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (19)
- Howard v. State, 440 Md. 427, 434, 103 A.3d 572, 576 (2014)(followed)
- State Comm'n on Human Relations v. Talbot Cnty. Det. Ctr., 370 Md. 115, 139, 803 A.2d 527, 541 (2002)(followed)
- Colandrea v. Wilde Lake Cmty. Ass'n, Inc., 361 Md. 371, 394-95, 761 A.2d 899, 911 (2000)(followed)
- Prince George's Cnty. v. Vieira, 340 Md. 651, 661, 667 A.2d 898, 903 (1995)(followed)
- Droney v. Droney, 102 Md. App. 672, 684, 651 A.2d 415, 421 (1995)(followed)
- Royal Inv. Grp., LLC v. Wang, 183 Md. App. 406, 448, 961 A.2d 665, 689 (2008), cert. dismissed, 409 Md. 413, 975 A.2d 875 (2009)(followed)
- In re Ryan W., 434 Md. 577, 602, 76 A.3d 1049, 1064 (2013)(followed)
- Smith v. State, 399 Md. 565, 574, 924 A.2d 1175, 1180 (2007)(followed)
- Hailes v. State, 442 Md. 488, 495, 113 A.3d 608, 612 (2015)(followed)
- Anne Arundel Cnty. Ethics Comm'n v. Dvorak, 189 Md. App. 46, 83, 983 A.2d 557, 579 (2009)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 19.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…