Opposition Brief — Maurice M. M. v. Bouknight (Nos. 88-6651, 88-1182)

Supreme Court brief1989

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

EDITOR'S NOTE

THE FOLLOWING PAGES WERE POOR HARD COPY

AT THE TIME OF FILMING, IF AND WHEN A

BETTER COPY CAN BE OBTAINED, A NEW FICHE

WILL BE ISSUED,

——— eS

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

FEB 17 3989

IN THE JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, UR.

CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

‘

OCTOBER TERM, 1988

No. 88-1182

8) 668 ‘

BALTIMORE CITY DEPARTMENT OF

SOCIAL SERVICES,

Petitioner,

Vv.

JACQUELINE BOUKNIGHT,

Respondent.

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

The Petitioner, Jacqueline Bouknight, who is indi-

gent and who has been found to meet the qualifications for

representation by the Office of the Public Defender for the

State of Maryland, asks leave to file the attached Brief in

Opposition to the Court of Appeals of Maryland without

prepayment of costs and to proceed in forma pauperis pursu-

ant to Rule 46.

The Petitioner's Affidavit in support of this a

Petition is attached hereto.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Be </

George E. Burns, Jr. OCTOBER TERM, 1988

Assistant Public Defender

Appellate Division

201 St. Paul Place

Baltimore, MD 21202 No. 88-1182

(301) 333-4842

Counsel for Petitioner

BALTIMORE CITY DEPARTMENT OF

SOCIAL SERVICES,

Petitioner,

JACQUELINE BOUKNIGHT,

, Respondent.

| BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PROCEED

ON APPEAL IN FPORMA PAUPERIS

I, Jacqueline Bouknight, being first duly sworn,

depose and say that I am the Respondent in the above-enti-

tled case; that in I am unable to pay the costs of said

proceeding, and that I believe I am entitled to redress.

I further swear that the responses which I have

made to the questions and instructions below relating to my

ability to pay the cost of prosecuting the appeal are true.

l. Are you presently employed?

(a) If the answer is yes, state the

amount of your salary or wages per

month and give the name and address of

your employer.

‘ “

(b) If the answer is no, state the

date of your last employment and the

amount of the salary and wages per

month which you received.

Sb ~~

Bre. ui iia

2. Have you received within the past

twelve months any income from a business,

profession or other form of self-employ-

ment, or in the form of rent payments,

interest, dividends, or other source?

(a) If the answer is yes, describe

each source of income and state the

amount received from each during the

past twelve months.

3. Do you own any cash or checking or

savings accounts? = *

4. Do you own any real estate, stocks,

bonds, notes, automobiles, or other valu-

able property (excluding ordinary house-

hold furnishings and clothing)?

(a) If the answer is yes, describe the

property and state its approximate.

value.

5. List the persons who are dependent

upon you for support and state your rela-

tionship to those persons.

I understand that a false statement or answer to my

questions in this affidavit will subject me to penalties for

perjury.

A, Gh eee et _

Jacqueline Bouknight

Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public

this tO day of Paeruery » 1989.

ARY PUB

My Commission Expires: July |, 1A4D

Let the applicant proceed without prepayment of

costs or fees or the necessity of giving security therefore.

JUSTICE

IN THE

' INDEX

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OCTOBER TERM, 1988

Page

ISSUES PRET Ee COCO OOOESEEE OHSS OEE SELES EEO ESEOOEOESS i

No. 88-1182

STATEMENT OF 00) a l

REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT. cere een erenceeseeeesegenes 5

BALTIMORE CITY DEPARTMENT OF :

SOCIAL SERVICES, CONCLUSION. *oentreeeeeeeesee#eee#eeeee#eeeseeernpteeneteeeeeneteeeeneeneneeeeets#e# ; *ee ll

Petitioner, : APPENDIX. *enereieeeeeneeneeeeeneeeneeneeeneeneeeeeeneneeeeneeeneeeee A-1l

TRANSCRIPT OF APRIL 20, 1198S. ccccccccsccsecs A-1

Vv. PROGRESS REPORT. e*eeeseeoeeneeeenetenseeeeeeneeeneeeeneteeeeeee A-30

MOTION FOR e° »y : | » eee eo ee ee ee a a a a a a A-44

JACQUELINE BOUKNIGHT,

Respondent TABLE OF CITATIONS

Cases

BRIEF In OPPOSITION TO Burch Ve Louisiana, 441 U.S 130 C19TOdccccccccecesceces 12

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424 (1971]L).ceeeeeeeeeeeee 9

Commonwealth v. Hughes, 404 N.E.2d 1239 (Mass. 1980),

cert. den ed 449 U.S. 900 T2GEO) cccccceccececes 5

Alan H. Murrell Curcio v. United States, 354 U.S 118 (1957)... eeeeeee Y

Public Defender

Johnson Ve Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 CIDBS)ccccccccesecececs ll

George E. Burns, a.”

Assistant Public Defender Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972).....+.+++ 8

Appellate Division

201 St. Paul Place Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801 (1977)...+-eee0+5 9

Baltimore, MD 21202

(301) 333-4842 Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S 70 (1973).-ceeeeeeeeseeeese 8

Jose' Felipe’ Anderson Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433 (1974) --seeeeeeceeeeee 6

Assistant Public Defender

Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York,

George E. Lipman 378 U.S. + Ol.) PP PPrwrrrr~Tryréféereyeéeyrrrrsresesreee iat

Assistant Public Defender

Raley Ve Ohic, 360 U.S. 423 (1959) ccccccccccccccesccces 12

Counsel for Respondent

Counsel of Record

Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367 (1951)....... 10, ll .

PRESENTED

Slochower v. Board of Education of New York, ISSUE

De eT ee ee Beebeeceesceccece | ©

Where Respondent is being investigated for the

Smith v. United States, 337 U.S. 137 (1949)......ee+-2- Ll

suspected homicide of her child, does the right against

Miscellaneous

self-incrimination bar the juvenile court from incarcerating

Amendme \

- ve aes oy the Fitts *enereeee ane “ees eeeeeneeee ee 6 Respondent to compe 1 her to produce her child or disclose

his whereabouts?

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1988

No. 88-1182

BALTIMORE CITY DEPARTMENT OF

SOCIAL SERVICES,

Petitioner,

Vv.

JACQUELINE BOUKNIGHT,

Respondent

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

The Respondent, by her attorneys, George E. Burns,

Jr., Jose’ Felipe’ Anderson, and George M. Lipman, Assistant

Public Defenders, requests that the petition for writ of

certiorari be denied.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The basic facts are set forth in the Petition for

writ of certiorari and the opinion of the Court of Appeals

included in the appendix to the petition. The following

facts are set forth by way of amplification.

Pursuant to a finding that Respondent's child,

Maurice, was in need of assistance, the Baltimore City De-

partment of Social Services agreed that Maurice should

remain in his mother's custody with the following condi-

tions:

1. Baltimore City Department of

Social Services shall submit progress

reports every six months.

2. Mother shall cooperate with BCDSS.

3. Mother shall continue in therapy

until discharged.

4. Mother shall attend center for

infant studies at University of Maryland

until discharged.

5. Mother shall continue to utilize

services of parent aid as provided by

BCDSS.

6. Mother shall refrain from physi-

cally punishing the Respondent.

This order was agreed to on August 18, 1987. Petitioner's

supervision following this order was summarized by the Court

of Appeals.

There was evidence that DSS represen-

tatives had not seen Maurice since Septem-

ber 4, 1987; that the DSS aide's efforts

to see Maurice were thwarted by

Jacqueline's statements that the child was

not at home; and that Jacqueline had told

police that Maurice was in the care of an

aunt, but that the aunt had denied seeing

Maurice. (Petitioner's Appendix at 19a.

n.2).

According to the summary of progress prepared by

Petitioner, Petitioner took increased interest in the case

in March,

1988. (App.33-34). As a result by April 15,

1988, the following entry appears:

T/C -{telephone call] from Officer

Klein at 4 p.m.; Officer Klein to refer

case to Homicide to Sgt. Landsmann. (396-

2721). Ms. Louise Perry had never seen

the baby. Case looks kinky. Officer

thinks Ms. Bouknight did something that

has hurt Maurice. (App.37).

Similarly, on April 18, 1988, it was noted:

T/C to Det. James Jones; nothing new

on case. Worker suggested photograph of

mother and to accompany Det. Jones. Det.

Jones stated he would rely on cooperation

of Ms. Bouknight. Worker emphasized the '

possibility of this being a murder case.

(App.38).

An entry for April 21, 1988, leaves no doubt that a

“homicide” is being investigated.

T/C to Det. James Jones; Det. Jones

advised that case should be regarded as a

homicide and that no responsible employee

of city or hospital had seen the child.

(App.40).

The point was reiterated on April 26, 1988:

Again on

T/C with Dot Rosinski, Chief of PS;

Dot Rosinski to contact Youth Division of

BCP on morning of 4.27.88 to request that

greatest attention be given to the matter

as it is a possible homicide. (App.4l).

May 4, 1988, it is noted that:

T/C from Detective James Jones of the

Youth Section, Baltimore City Police

396-2042. Detective Jones requesting

worker to meet with Detective Richard

Falhteich of Homicide Division of Balti-

more City Police (9:50 a.m.) 11:00 a.m. -

Interview of worker by Detective Richard

Fahlteich of Homicide, Baltimore City

Police at 500 East Baltimore Street,

396-2721. (App.43).

The contempt proceedings themselves also reflect

the interrelationship between the contempt action and the

homicide investigation. Indeed, the petition seeking con-

tempt states that “this case was referred [to] the Homicide

Division for further investigation due to concern. cVer the

welfare of the Respondent [Maurice]." (App.48). ¢

observed

At the hearing on April 20, 1988, the hearing judge

that:

“The child representative, Ms. Watts,

has joined in with the Department of

Social Services. Apparently, a decision

was made to terminate the foster care

relationship even in light of the finding

by Dr. Eisenberg that it is not recom-

mended that she regain custody of the!

child, because it does not appear that she

is emotionally capable of providing the

protection, nurturance, and care that

would be required for the child's safety

and security.

So, she is in need of intensive and

| extensive intervention both on emotional

and social levels to help her deal with

not only her own internal issues but also

those requirements for independent and

self-sufficient functioning. What that

tells me is we have a lady in severe

crisis here. We also possibly have a dead

child somewhere which just depresses me to

no end, I am not going to kid you.

Since Master Price has recommended the

issuance of a warrant, and I have to sign

the warrant, I am going to sign the war-

rant. I'd like to get in touch with

somebody in the Police Department to have

them go out and take a look into this

situation as rapidly as possible. ’

(App.19-20).

The judge was then informed that Petitioner “had a Homicide

detective downstairs in Juvenile Court." (App.20).

After the judge had ordered the arrest of Respon-

dent, counsel for Petitioner counseled:

“Your Honor, if it would be possible

too, if the police were sent out, Dr.

Eisenberg was concerned that this girl not

be treated in any kind of threatening way.

He said emotionally, she is functioning at

about an eight to ten year old level. So,

he feels, especially with the suicide 'e

threat she has made, which he thinks we

all should take very seriously, he thought

the best thing to do was to deal with her

as if she were a ten year old child, a

very non-threatening kind of approach.

I don*t know what happens when the

police go out and pick someone up. But if

they could be made aware of, if we ever

expect to find. out what happened with the

child, that we're going to have to treat

this lady very gently, I think. (emphasis

added) (App. 21-22).

REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT

No matter what else it may be doing, the State is,

based on the record in this case, conducting a homicide

investigation with Respondent as the chief suspect and her

son as the probable victim. As noted by the Supreme Judi-

cial Court ef Wnccechusctte, whatever the exact reach of the

right against self-incrimination, an attempt to make a de-

fendant “deliver the corpus delicti” implicates the core of

the protection afforded by the right .+

Commonwealth v.

lwhether respondent is actually guilty of homicide or any

other crime is irrelevant.

At the outset we must condemn the

practice of imputing a sinister meaning to

earn

Hughes, 404 N.E.2d 1239 (Mass. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. °

900 (1980). See also L. Levy, Origins of the Fifth Amend-

ment 427 (2d ed.1969).% The right against self-incrimina-

the exercise of a person's constitutional

right under the Fifth Amendment. The

right of an accused person to refuse to

testify, which had been in England merely.

a rule of evidence, was so important to

our forefathers that they raised it to the

dignity of a constitutional enactment, and

it has been recognized as ‘one of the most

valuable prerogatives cf the citizen.’ We

have reaffirmed our faith in this princi-

ple recently in Quinn v. United States,

349 U.S. 155, 99 L.ed.964, 75 S.Ct.668. In

Ullman v. United States, 350 U.S.422, 100

L.ed.51l1, 76 S.Ct.497, decided last month,

we scored the assumption that those who

claim this privilege are either criminals

or perjurors. The privilege against

self-incrimination would be reduced to a

hollow mockery if its exercise could be

taken as equivalent either to a confession

of guilt or a conclusive presumption of

perjury. -As we pointed out’ in Ullmann, a

witness may have a reasonable fear of

prosecution and yet be innocent of any

wrongdoing. The privilege serves to

protect the innocent who otherwise might

be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.

Slochower v. Board of Education of New

York, 350 U.S. 550, 557-558 (1956). ~~

Faced with suspicious social workers and police, someone in

Respondent's position might reasonably “be ensnared by

ambiguous circumstances" if, for example, her scn were no

longer in existence even though through no fault of Respon-

dent.

27he Massachusetts Court in Hughes did nothing more than

apply the principles of the Fifth Amendment privilege a-

gainst self incrimination as so aptly noted by Chief Justice

Rehnquist in Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 440 (1974).

At this point in our history virtually

every schoolboy is familiar with the

concept, if not the language, of the

provision that reads: “No person ... shall

be compelled in any criminal case to be

witness against himself...“ This Court's

tion would mean little if it did not protect a homicide

suspect from being forced to be a witness for the State.

Petitioner's claim that this case does not involve

“testimonial” evidence and therefore does not implicate the

right against self-incrimination is also unavailing. Re-

spondent does not have a duty to incriminate herself. There-

fore, it is Petitioner's burden to show that there is a

decisions have referred to the right as

“the mainstay of our adversary system of

criminal justice," Johnson v. New Jersey,

supra, at 729, 16 L Ed 2d 882, and as

“one of the great landmarks in man's

struggle to make himself civilized.'”

Ullman, supra, at 426, 100 L Ed 53 ALR2d

1008. It is not surprising that the

constitution of virtually every State has

a comparable provision. 8 J. Wigmore,

Evidence §2252 (McNaughton rev 1961)

(hereinafter Wigmore).

The importance of a right does not, by

itself, determine its scope, and therefore

we must continue to hark back to the

historical origins of the privilege,

particularly the evils at which it was to

strike. The privilege against compulsory

self-incrimination was developed by pain-

ful opposition to a course of ecclesiasti-

cal inquisitions and Star Chamber

proceedings occurring several centuries

ago. See L. Levy, Origins of the Fifth

Amendment (1968); Morgan, The Privilege

Against Self-Incrimination, 34 Minn L Rev

1 (1949); 8 Wigmore §2250. Certainly

anyone who reads accounts of those inves-

tigations, which placed a premium on

compelling subjects of the investigation

to admit guilt from their own lips, cannot

help but be sensitive to the Framers'

desire to protect citizens against such

compulsion. As this court has noted, the

privilege against self-incrimination "was

aimed at a ... far-reaching evil -- a

recurrence of the Inquisition and the Star

Chamber, even if not in their stark bru-

tality."

means by which she can both purge her contempt and not

incriminate herself. Thus, this Court has noted that, among

other things, the right against self-incrimination reflects

“our unwillingness to subject those suspected of crime to

the cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt."

Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York, 378 U.S. 52, 55

(1964). See also Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441,

444 (1972).

If the child is dead and gone, as the police au-:

thorities apparently believe, this is impossible. If Re-

spondent were, for example, to tell her counsel that the

child was deceased and missing under suspicious circum-

stances, the communication would be privileged and not purge

the contempt. An anonymous call conveying the same informa-

tion would also obviously fail to purge the contempt. In

sum, there is no way that Respondent can both purge the

contempt and avoid a reasonable risk of self-incrimination.

Petitioner's alternative claim is that because a

child is involved the Fifth Amendment should be “balanced”

out of existence. The starting point for analysis of this

claim has been provided by this Court.

“But claims of overriding interests

are not unusual in Fifth Amendment litiga-

tion and they have not fared well.”

Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 78

(1973).

The reason for this failure is clear.

“We have already rejected the notion

that citizens may be forced to incriminate

themselves because it serves a governmen-

tal need." Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431

U.S 801 (1977).

Petitioner's attempt to circumvent these principles

rests primarily on a misreading of the plurality opinion in

California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424 (1971). In Byers this

Court considered the effect of a California statute requir-

ing that a motorist involved in an automobile accident not

leave the scene and supply his name and address.

The plurality first noted that the statute was not

aimed at a group particularly suspected of criminal activ-

ity. It further noted that the acts required were “neutral”

and other purposes to be served were “always subject to the

driver's right to assert a Fifth Amendment privilege con-

cerning specific inquiries." Id. at 433.

In the case at bar, a single individual is being

investigated for homicide and is being ordered to disclose

the whereabouts of the supposed victim. Byers involved a

neutral state regulation; this case involves preparation for

a prospective homicide prosecution. There is no similarity

between the two cases.

unless it can incarcerate Respondent for civil contempt is

disingenuous. As noted by the Court of Appeals, the failure

to produce the child may constitute a separate statutory

crime. (Petitioner's Appendix at 420, n.3). Thus, there

are means of enforcing the juvenile court's order without

depriving Respondent of her Fifth Amendment rights. See

Curcio v. United States, 354 U.S 118 (1957). iia

Petitioner's waiver arguments are frivolous. At one

point Respondent (not under oath) said the child was in

Dallas. According to Petitioner, this “statement” “waives"

the right against self-incrimination. Reliance is placed on

Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367 (1951). In ers, a

witness freely admitted to her membership in the Communist

Party. She refused, however, to name another person who had

received Party records. This Court noted that under: these

circumstances she could not be further incriminated by

answering the subsequent questions. This conclusion was not

based on waiver.

Requiring full disclosure of detail

after a witness freely testifies as to a

criminating fact does not rest upon a

further ‘waiver' of the privilege against

self-incrimination. Admittedly, peti-

tioner had already ‘waived' her privilege

of silence when she freely answered crim-

inating questions relating to her connec-

tion with the Communist Party. But when

petitioner was asked to furnish the name

of the person to whom she turned over

Party records, the court was required to

determine, as it must whenever the privi-

lege is claimed, whether the question .

presented a reasonable danger of further

crimination including any previous disclo-

sures. As to each question to which a

claim of privilege is directed, the court

must determine whether the answer to that

particular question would subject the

witness to a ‘real danger’ of further

crimination. After petitioner's admission

that she held the office of Treasurer of

the Communist Party of Denver, disclosure

presents no more than a ‘mere imaginary

possibility’ of increasing the danger of

prosecution.

Id. at 374-275.

Even ignoring the crucial fact that Respondent

never testified, Rogers does not support Petitioner's the-

ory. Merely saying the child is in Dallas does not incri-

minate Respondent to an extent that there can be no “further

crimination” in relation to crimes such as murder, assault

and child abuse.

The second aspect of the “waiver” theory is that by

accepting custody of the child Respondent “waived" any

subsequent claim of self-incrimination. "A waiver is ordi-

narily an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of known

right or privilege." Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464

(1938). See also Smith v. United States, 337 U.S.137 (1949).

The order with its conditions are set forth in the Statement

of the Case and contains not a word about self-incrimin-

ation. Indeed, if this “agreement” gives notice of a

“waiver” of self-incrimination, it equally gives notice of a

waiver of the protection against cruel and unusual punish-

ment and the right to free speech. The waiver contentions

do not merit consideration by any court, much less this

Court.

CONCLUSION

The facts of this case are admittedly interesting.

Nevertheless, ignoring Petitioner‘s hysteria, there is

nothing to justify review by this Court. Regrettably, every

day there are prosecutions for child abuse and related

offenses. However, this unfortunate state of affairs does

not justify abrogating the accused's right not to incrimi-

nate herself. Similarly, susvected homicides where the

victim cannot be found have long plagued the criminal law,

but, once again, the problem is not a basis for depriving

suspects of a constitutional protection. Petitioner's ra-

tionale for contending that Respondent can be held in con-

tempt is that when the missing victim is a juvenile even the

most fundamental constitutional protection must fall. This

claim is without historical or analytical support. The

petition should be denied.*

Respectfully submitted,

George E. Burns, Jr.

Assistant Public Defender

Jose* Felipe’ Anderson

Assistant Public Defender

George M. Lipman

Assistant Public Defender

- Counsel for Respondent

4The Legal Aid Bureau of Maryland has also filed a petition

(in behalf of Maurice) in this case. At pages 18-19 of this

petition it is argued, in effect, that Respondent did not

properly preserve her federal claim for appellate review.

The frivolity of this argument was demonstrated in the Court

of Appeals. However, at this stage in the proceedings it is

sufficient to note that the argument does not raise a fed-

eral question. “There can be no question as to the proper

presentation of a federal claim when the highest state court

passes on it." Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423, 436 (1959). See

also Burch v. Louisiana, 441 U.S. 130, 133 n-5 (1979).

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 16th day of February,

1989, three copies of the foregoing Petition were delivered

to Ralph Tyler, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the

Attorney General, The Munsey Building, 7 North Calvert

Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 and to Susan Dishler

Shubin, Esq., Legal Aid Bureau, Inc.,

714 East Pratt Street,

7th Floor, Baltimore, Maryland 21202.

Ae wey

George E. Burns,MWr.

Assistant Publig#’ Defender

201 St. Paul Place

Baltimore, Maryland 21202

(301) 333-4842

Attorney for Appellant

APPENDIX

Table of Contents

TRANSCRIPT OF APRIL 20, 198B8.cceeeeeeeeeeeenvessceesees 1

PROGRESS REPORT... -ececcecececeessesssesessesesssssesess 30

MOTION FOR CONTEMPT... -eeececeseeces Core reese eeseeseeeees 44

.—-——

TS THE CIRCUIT COURT POR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND

DIVISION POR JUVENILE CAUSES

IN THE MATTER OF:

MAURICE M_

meee.

Born October 3, 1986 Petition No. 8870429"

REPORTER'S OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Baltimore, Mar,.and

April 20, .1988

_ BEFORE: o«

. BONORABLE EDWARD J. ANGELETTI, Judge

MARILYN E. BLIMLINE,

Staff Attorney

On behalf of Department of Social Services

ESQUIRE

LISA WATTS, ESQUIRE

Legal Aid Bureau

On behalé of the Respondent Child

ROBIN PARSONS, ESQUIRE

Assistant Public Defender

On behalf of the Mother

CAROL J. ROBINSON

Official Court Reporter

507 Clarence Mitchell Courthouse

Baltimore, Maryland 212?

R- 9001

PROCEEDINGS

THE COURT: Now, we have this matter from

Juvenile Court. Sheriff, keep the door closed.

Don't let anyone in the courtroom. |

Let the record reflect that the courtroom

is empty except for the juvenile clerk and the

Juvenile Court personnel involed in the present case.

The matter before the Court is the matter

of Maurice M —ivision for Juvenile Causes,

| seta

Petition Number 88704202. It is a motion by the

Department of Social Services for Baltimore City ;

through Ms. Marilyn Slimline, their attorney, for a

finding of contempt and for the Issuance of an Order

to Show Cause. The Court has carefully read and

considered the Motion for Contempt and the Petition

for the Issuance of an Order to Snow Cause.

Basically, what has happened, the child

who is the subject of these proceedings, Maurice

Ms, -was born on October 3, 1986. After

investigating reports of physical abuse and having

confirmed those reports, the mother of the child,

Miss Jacqueline Bouknight -- is she present?

MS. BLIMLINE: No, she is not, Judge.

THE COURT: She had custody of the child

taken from her, and the child was placed in foster

A- 21002

a oe

—_— — ai

care under the Baltimore City Department of Social

Services. There were several hearings at the last

hearing. Master Mitchell returned the child to his

mother pending disposition. That was on July 17 of

1987. A dispositional hearing was held on August 18,

1987, and the child was found to be a Cuiid in Need

of Assistance and placed under protective order and

— with the mother. |

The mother has failed to comply with any

of the requirements of that order, and on April 7, a

home visit was made. The petitioner was advised, the

petitioner being the Baltimore City Department of

Social Services, that the child was in the care_of an

aunt, but she refused to idéntify the aunt or provide

the whereabouts.

The following day, attempts were made ‘to

locate the mother through various relatives, all

without success. The Baltimore City Police were

contacted on April 2. A Missing Persons report was

made. The mother told the investigating officer that

an aunt by the name of Louise Perry had the child,

and Miss Perry denies this, but she said she didn't

see the child, that she didn't see her.

Baltimore City Homicide detectives were

contacted, and they are apparently in the process now

A- 9003

-_N ww

ee ;

of conducting an investigation concerning the welfare . , 1 MRS. PARSONS: Robin Parsons, Public

of the child. Miss Bouknight had apparently informed | e 2 Defender's Office, Assistant Public Defender

Miss Blimline that she intends to kill herself 3 representing the mother whose name is Jacqueline

following the hearing today which was scheduled in 4 Bouknight.

the Juvenile Court. Does that sum up everything that 5 THE COURT: Can you tell me where the

has occurred? , 6 mother is?

MS. BLIMLINE: Yes, Your Honor. She made 7 MS. PARSONS: Your Honor, I had contact

the statement, however, to the social worker, Phil 8 from the mother. She called me a couple of days ago

Macuire. 9 to tell me that Mr. Maguire, the social worker, was

THE COURT: Would all the parties who are 10 going to be filing this Missing Persons report. And

present in court identify themselves? ll she told me at that time that she has been in school

MS. BLIMLINE: Marilyn Blimline 12 and during the time she has been in school, she has

representing the Baltimore City Department of Social 13 left the child with a friend or relative, I can’t

Services. 14 recall.

MS. WATTS:. Lisa Watts, Legal Aid Bureau, 15 She said, “I have to take a day off from

representing the Respondent child, Maurice M___. 16 school in order to have the child so he can come to

THE COURT: May I have your name again? : 17 see the child, and I have been trying to reach him

MS. WATTS: My name is Lisa Watts from the 18 and have not been able to reach him to come over and

Legal Aid Bureau. 19 see the child.“ So, I said, "Well, it sounds simple

THE COURT: Lisa Watts? 20 enough. You are off school today. Why don't you

MS. WATTS: Right. 21 just call him and I will call him.” But I was unable

THE COURT: Ms. Watts, you represent the 22 to reach him. But I said, °We'll both call him and

child? 23 have him come over and see the child, and that would

MS. WATTS: That is correct. 24 be the end of the matter."

THE COURT: All right. 25. Apparently, that didn't happen. Today I

A- 3004 wd

| | we aon a

have spoken with my client. I spoke with her this

morning, told her we were going to have the matter

heard this afternoon. The problem is, nobody has

seen the baby. I said, *We need to see the baby. fi

There is a concern about the baby.” I said, “Be here

at one o'clock sharp with the baby."® And she said

she would be here. . She is not here.

I have talked with, I guess it is a

friend, the number where the mother can be reached,

and the friend said she saw the mother with the bdaby

leaving ostensibly for court a little before noon.

And she said she saw the baby with the mother. She

was quite definite about it. That is the only

information I have. The mother is now, it is almost

3 o'clock, and the mother is not here. She had to

take tne bus, but I don't suspect that is going to

take three hours.

MS. BLIMLINE: Your Honor, in cegards to

the review hearing that was scheduled before Master

Teaette Price this afternoon, that was postponed, a

bench warrant was issued for the mother, and a

shelter care order on Maurice, the Respondent, to the

Department of Social Services.

The Bepertnent is very concerned, because

although Ms. Parsons spoke on the phone with someone

A- 3006

who assured her they saw the baby this morning, we

failed to get that persons's name. We don't know who

she was talking to.

The social worker, Phillip Maguire, who is

present in the courtroom today last saw the child on

September 4, 1987. He has been in touch with all of

the relatives in Baltimore he can locate and even

some out-of-state relatives. And to date, he has not

been able to find anyone who has seen the child or

who will consistently say they have seen the child

any later than, well, one aunt, a maternal aunt said

she saw the child and mother on the street in

February. Other than that, it seems no one in the

family has seen the child since summertime.

So, we're very concerned. This is a very

serious abuse case involving a chila who at the time

wes only six months old and involved about three

fractures, one being of the femur, which is a pretty

difficult bone to break on a six-month-old.

I. spoke with the psychologist who examined

and evaluated this lady prior to the dispositional

hearing --

MS. PARSONS: I am going to object to

that. I don't believe that's relevant to the matter

today.

A- 3007

THE COURT: Well, I am conducting a

hearing to try to find out where Maurice M_- is,

and I think it is important that the Court be

apprised of any evidence that would tend to shed

light on that situation. So, I overrule the

objection.

MS. BLIMLINE: Your Honor, I spoke with a

doctor who examined and evaluated this lady prior to

the dispositional hearing. That was Dr. Joseph

Eisenberg. He is very concerned about the safety of

the minor child. Se is concerned that perhaps the

chile is now dead or injured so severely that the

mother has hidden the chile. And I have a copy of

his report which was not entered into evidence at the

time of the dispositional hearing, but I would like

the Court to be aware of it at this time, anda I would

like this entered.

MS. PARSONS: I object to this. This

concerns evidenee that could have been presented

prior to disposition which was way back in August.

It has nothing to do with the present whereabouts of

this baby. |

MS. BLIMLINE: Your Honor, it couldn't

have been presented prior to disposition, because the

Department of Social Services did not receive a copy

f-2008 |

all

——— oe era --

of this until after the dispositional hearing.

MS. PARSONS: It has nothing to do with

the whereabouts of the baby.

THE COURT: If what that Qnanes says is

accurate, Ms. Parsons, then what? Suppose the baby

is so seriously injured or dead? What am I supposed

to do? Say it is not relevant?

MS. PARSONS: Your Honor, there is no

evidence or no indication anything is wrong with the

baby.

THE COURT: Where is the baby? Bring me

the baby. If I see the baby is okay, fine. [| am

hapy. But. somebody has to protect that child. Sased

on what I have already ry this child is in

serious jeopardy. Let me hear from Ms. Watts. Let

me see that report, please.

MS. WATTS: Your Honor, I would basically

be in agreement with Ms. Blimline‘s position, The

fact the mother has not complied with the conditions

of the order of protective supervision, the fact that

many of the relatives have not seen the baby for

quite some time now, and also the report that she is

referring to from the doctor which also has concern

about mother's ability to care for this child.

Additionally, mother was supposed to show up this.

A- 2009

-—- >?

afternoon, and she has not appeared.

So, I would support the Department's

position, and I do have concerns about the

whereabouts of this child. |

THE COURT: Ms. Parsons, have you shared

the information that you have as to the whereabouts

of your client with other counsel?

MS. PARSONS: Yes, and also with Master

Price earlier this afternoon.

TEE COURT: You did speak with Miss

Bouknight today?

MS. PARSONS: Yes. >

THE COURT: Are you sure it was Miss_

Bouknight you spoke with?

MS. PARSONS: Yes.

THE COURT: You have spoken with her on

the phone before? You recognize her voice?

MS. PARSONS: Yes. I have been on this

Case since Pebruary 1987. I have spoken with her a

number of times, and I am quite sure it was she with

whom I was speaking. Also, as I said, I spoke with

her several days ago. She called me. She called me

several times and left messages. I got back to her,

and we spoke about this. And I had no reason to

think and still don't have any reason to believe

pare

——

there is anything wrong. She didn't seem upset or

panicked in any way. It: sounded as if she-were .

certainly intending to be here on time. She was very

clear that she would be here at one o'clock.

THE COURT: She fooled all of us including

you, didn't she?

MS. PARSONS: Well, I am not so sure.

There may be something that happened along the way

that may have prevented her from being here.

TEE COURT: Like something happening to

this child. How long has it been since you've seen

the child? ,

MS. PARSONS: I have not seen the child

Since we were last in court.

THE COURT: In September of last year.

MS. PARSONS: But the individual that I

Spoke with said she had seen the child just a few

hours ago with the mother.

THE COURT: Do you know that person?

MS. PARSONS: No.

THE COURT: Did you ever meet that

individual in person?

MS. PARSONS: No.

THE COURT: So, you have no way of

determining who that. person even is.

A- 9012 |

. -.

Pia

MS. PARSONS: Well, I could call the

number and ask. I have spoken with hee not once but

about four times today. That's the only way of

contacting the mother is through this number she gave

me of a friend. And I have spoken with the friend at

least four times. I have been calling all day.

THE COURT: Well, that would indicate to

this court that you are as concerned about this child

as Ms. Blimline and Ms. Watts.

MS. PARSONS: No, Your Honor, I just

wanted to be sure that my client appeared and did

what she was supposed to so she could continue to

have her child in her custody. That is my concern,

because obviously, she wants to continue taking care

of her child and going to school.

THE COURT: What school is she going to?

MS. PARSONS: I am not sure.

THE COURT: Do you have the name of the

school or the type of school?

MS. PARSONS: No, I don't, just that she

said she was in school.

THE COURT: She said she was in school.

She is how old? 21 and a half? She will be 22 in

June?

MS. PARSONS: Right.

a-2012 ;

THE COURT: You don't have any idea what

school she is going to. Has anyone else been able to

tell you that?

MS. PARSONS: No.

MS. BLIMLINE: Your Honor, if I could

point out too, this mother came through the juvenile

system. She has an extensive psychiatric history

dating back to the time when she was four years old.

I have copies of that. I don't think it is necessary

to take up the Court's time to have you read them

right now, but she has some serious problems.

Also, the mother herself is not hiding

from the Department. The social worker saw her

yesterday. But she is refusing to divulge the

whereabouts of the child to the worker or to the

police or to the Homicide detective wno recently

became involved.

THE COURT: We'll issue -- who issued a

warrant for this lady?

MS. PARSONS: Master Price did about an

hour ago.

THE COURT: She submitted that warrant to

Judge Mitchell for approval.

MR. NEAL: Michael Neal, Juvenile Court

Administrator. Judge Mitchell is on jury duty today.

RA- 3013

The warrant is being processed now. [I will be

bringing the warrant to you for signature.

MS. BLIMLINE: There is also a Missing

Persons already out on the baby that nes not produced

the baby yet and the shelter care to the Department

on the infant.

THE COURT: What was the reason that the

shelter care was terminated last year?

MS. BLIMLINE: The shelter care expired at

the time of disposition.

TEE COURT: Why was it permitted to

expire? That is what I want to know.

MS. BLIMLINE: On July 17, 1987, when

Master Mitchell ordered shelter care in the home of

the mother, the Department opposed that at that time.

However, an exception was not filed. I can't explain

why it was not. I was not the attorney of record. I

have no idea. At the time of disposition, I should

point out to the Court that the parties entered into

a stipulation for order of protective services as

opposed to commitment.

So, the parties were in agreement at the

time, but keep in mind this is without the benefit of

Dr. Eisenberg's psychological evaluation, they were

in agreement the child should be hone.

A- 3014

The child, in all fairness to the mother,

evidently, she has been doing fairly weil up until

last month when the child's father was killed. ,

Evidently, it was a drug killing. -And something has

happened to this young mother since that time.

People who have seen her think she has not been quite

right since the killing.

THE COURT: Ms. Watts, do you have

anything further you are offering to the Court?

MS. WATTS: No, I don't, only I recently

have acquired this case. I was not the attorney for

the chilc when the case first came in last year. So,

I wouldn't know how to answer that. ss

MS. BLIMLINE: Your Honor, I would also

like to ask the Court that if it is possible, when

this lady is picked up, if she is ever picked up by

the police, that she receive a psychiatric evaluation

to in some way judge her ability to provide care for

this child now.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Conti from Medical

Services is prsent in the courtroom.

MS. PARSONS: Your Honor, we would be

opposed to that. Until the mother is located and

until there is some evidence, some reason to believe

there is something wrong with her or the baby, or

AR: 3015

both, I would oppose any ordering of the

psychological or psychiatric.

MS. BLIMLINE: Your Honor, I think there

is more than enough reason to suspect that something

is wrong. She failed to appear today. Ms. Parsons

pointed out to her our concern, many people's

concern, that the baby is dead. So, I think she has

indicated by her failure to appear there is

definitely something wrong. Whether that be with the

child's health or welfare or whether that be with her

own emotional health, I don't know.

THE COURT: What is the quickest way we

can get ahold of this lady physically? “

MS. BLIMLINE: I would suggest the police

send, that you send the police out to see if you can

pick her up at the home where Ms. Parsons contacted

her earlier this morning. The social worker has an

extensive list of addresses for relatives. I think

if the police made a concerted effort to seek her out

at all those relatives’ homes, I think that would

perhaps be a sood idea.

I am really concerned about the passage of

every day that this child -- I just received this

case the day before yesterday. But after speaking

with DOr. Eisenberg last night on the phpone, to say

lt A- 3016

- a

that he was extremely concerned about the child's

wellbeing is putting it very, very mildly. I think

we need to do whatever Can be done to try to locate

the mother and the child.

Your Honor, I also have copies of the

mecical reports that deal with the child's injuries \

at the time this first came before the Juvenile Court

if you would like to see those.

THE COURT: Can you highlight those

injuries for the Court so that Mr. Conti is aware of

them, please?

MS. BLIMLINE: I shared these with Mr.

Conti earlier yesterday.

TSE COURT: Mr. Conti, you are onde a0

all of this?

MR. CONTI: Quite aware.

THE COURT: Are you aware of Dr.

Eisenberg's position dated July 27, that he is

concerned about the safety of the child?

- MR. CONTI: Yes.

. THE COURT: What would your view be of all

this, Mr. Conti, based on your knowledge of the

circumstances?

~—

MR. CONTI: My belief after reading the

material is that if this individual is arrested, she

RA: 4017

—— — — -_

=o 7 --

. .

. > .

is unquestionably in need of urgent evaluation

because of the potential possibility of harming

herself. When I learned earlier this afternoon that

apparently Master Price issued a warrant -- is that

correct?

MS. BLIMLINE: Yes, it is.

MR. CONTI: -=- I called Baltimore City

Jail in fact to be sure she would be handled special

if she came in today. I would suggest that if this

court takes some other kind of action, that I would

leave my private office answering service number so

that I may at least be in touch to see that she

receives any special handling she misht need after

her arrest. I see this as an individual in a crisis

Simply from the paperwork.

MS. PARSONS: Your Honor, I'd like to

underscore he has not met my client. He has

information he has only read and what Ms. Blimline

has told him.

THE COURT: Ms. Parsons, this whole matter

cov e cleared up if your client comes in and

bs. the baby in.

MS. PARSONS: I know.

THE COURT: You yourself said that you

spoke with her at least four times --

A- 4018

MS. PARSONS: No, with a neighbor, a

friend.

THE COURT: With a neighbor or a friend,

whoever it is, and she allegedly left her residence

to come to court. She was to be here at one o'clock.

That was two hours and 40 minutes ago. She has not

appeared. You yourself told her according to what

you told me that there was concern that the baby was

dead. Quite frankly, that concerns the daylights out

of of this court.

The child representative, Ms. Watts, has

joined in with the Department of Social Services.

Apparently, a decision was made to terminate the

foster care relationship even in light of the finding

by Dr. Eisenberg that it is not recommended that she

regain custody of the child, because it does not

appear that she is emotionally capable of providing

the protection, nurturance, and ones that wouid be

required for the child's safety and security.

So, she is in — of intensive and

extensive intervention both on emotional and social

levels to help her deal constructively with not only

her own internal issues but also those requirements

for independent and self-sufficient functioning.

What that tells me is we have a lady in a severe

_ - 9019

crisis nece. We also possibly have a dead child

somewhere which just depresses me to no end, I am not

going to kid vee.

Since Master Price has recommended the

issuance of a warrant, and I have to sign the

warrant, I am going to sign the warrant. I'd like to

get in touch with somebody in the Police Departmenc

to have them go out and take a look into this

Situation as rapidly as possible.

MS. BLIMEINE: Your donor, we had a

Homicide detective downstairs in Juvenile Court.

TEE COURT: Is he still there? a

MS. BLIMLINE: Detective James Jones.

THE COURT: Is he still there?

MS. BLIMLINE: He was there when we came

up here. In fact, he said he was coming up.

THE COURT: Could you bring Detective

Jones in here, please?

Let me have, if I may, please, Ms.

Parsons, the addresses and the phone numbers that you

have for Miss Bouknight.

MS. PARSONS: The last address I have is

1829 North Washington Street.

THE COURT: That's near Pederal, isn't it?

MS. PARSONS: Zone 13.

R- {020

THE COURT: That's near Federal. Go

ahead.

MS. BLIMLINE: The social worker who just

left would probably have the most p-eordine address.

THE COURT: What is the phone number you

used to contact the client?

MS. PARSONS: The phone number is

327-8873.

TEE COURT: And what is the phone number

of the person who claimed to be a friend?

MS. PARSONS: That's it. The only phone

number I have for Jacqueline is the phone number,

this phone number which is not hers but is that_of a

friend or relative. .

THE COURT: Do you know the name of that

person?

MS. PARSONS: No, I don't.

MS. BLIMLINE: Your Honor, if it would be

possible too, if the police were sent out, Dr.

Eisenberg was concerned that this girl not be treated

in any kind of threatening way. He said emotionally,

she is functioning at about an eight to ten year old

level. So, he feels, especially with the suicide

threat she has made, which he thinks we all should

take very seriously, he thought the best thing ta do

A- 0021

ee —-—-

r —_ —_ - ——— ——

was to deal with her as if she were a ten year old

child, a very nonthreatening kind of eggceath.:

I don't know what happens when the police

go out and pick someone up. But if they could be

made aware of, if we ever expect to find out what

happened with the child, that we're going to have to

treat this lady very gently, I think.

THE COURT: I had already come to that

conclusion, Ms. Blimline. My problem is, I don't

know where she is, and I don't know who is going to

come in contact with her first anc what the reaction

she is going to have with that individual is going to

be. And we are not picking her up for purposes of

punishing her. We are picking her up in an attempt

to find the child.

MS. BLIMLINE: Sut I am not sure she will

kow that. Ms. Parsons said the last time she called

that number, she did inform her a bench warrant had

been issued and the police were going to be looking

for her.

MS. PARSONS: I did forget to say when I

spoke with my client, I explained she hac to be here.

And she said, “Well, if I come, they just want me to

come so they can snatch the child."

I said, “Well, there is no guarantee

A- jo2z2%

rer ere. § & —

N ~

they are net going to remove the child from your ones

if you come to court with the child." I said, “But

they want to see the child, and they have an even

bigger concern that there is something wrong with the

child and that the child could be dead." And she

said, "Oh, no." And I said, "Well, we can clear it

up by just bringing the child in."

So, that was the conversation. She

appeared absolutely horrified when I said that.

MS. BLIMLINE: Of course, she was aware

already that was what we were suspecting, because the

social worker had contact with her as I explained to

you.

MS. PARSONS: I think she may be, if she

is deliberately staying away, it is probabiy because

she doesn't want to lose the child. She is afraid,

and, of course, that is what is going a» henmen if

she brings the child. The child will be removed.

THE COURT: What this court has to look at

is what is in the best interest of this child. And

quite frankly, that child is paramount on this

court's mind. That child was born on October 3, 1986

which means the child is about 18 months old now, and

the child is a baby. Based on all the information

before the Court, it is obvious the child is in some

A- 9023

ea.

3 _—- angel toes. _ a . . . 4 Ma . - i i eet i ee ey ol ee -é > atin 5 --~ _- , my e

‘ 7 . 1 Watts, has joined in with the Department of Social

; 1 eopardy because of the actions of the mother in : es |

| inate 2 Services, and in balancing the obligation of the

’ 2 refusing to bring her in. The'very fact she. has. “

. 3 Court to look out for the best interest of the child,

3 failed to come today tells me after you told her the .

- 4 I am persuaded the Court's action is appropriate at

4 reason for coming, that something is seriously wrong. ;

4 5 this time.

" S| And I can't shake that from my mind.

| . 4 6 I obviously am not going to make a finding

6 MS. BLIMLINE: The social wowrker also |

7 of a contempt. I am going to issue a contempt

7 attempted to get in touch with medical clinics around Sn - “.

d 8 citation against her for failing to appear.- She knew

8 the city to see if she has been bringing the child in 7 “

od =“ 9 she was to be here today. She failed to appear. So,

9 for any kind of medical care, and he has not been f

: 10 she will be cited for contempt.

10 able to locate one where the child has been seen.

11 I will issue the Order to Show Cause. The

ll THE COURT: Well, the motion to cite Miss ; ee

12 pench warrant will be signed by me as soon as.-it is

12 Jacquline Bouknight for contempt is granted.

. 13 presented to me. And I would like to have the-.

13 MS. PARSONS: Your Honor, I am sorry to

-~ 14 detectives go out and try to pick her up in as

14 interrupt, but I will oppose that on the basis that .

15 unobtrusive a fashion as possible, keeping in mind

15 the mother has not been served, and we had not been

16 that we have to find the child.

16 given notice, neither she nor I. I just received the ’

17 If she fails to produce the child, then I

17 motion this morning but certainly have not had a ,

18 will order her held without bail in Baltimore City

18 reasonable time to prepare a defense. And the rules

19 Jail until <=he child is found. I don't think I have

19 do require she be served, and certainly that I would °

20 much choice. If someone can give me some other

20 have some time to prepare something on her behalf.

21 reasonable alternative, I will be glad to consider

21 THE COURT: Once I bring the mother 90 =

22 beefore the Court with the child, you will have all

23 Ms. Parsons, you have no other alternative

23 the time in the world. But until that child is

. 24 to the Court?

24 safeguarded, I must overrule all of your objections

25 MS. PARSONS: No, I am sorry, I don't.

25 at this time. The child's representative, Ms. Lisa 7

, A 25

2 4 | - | . -

lt De i ll . ee ee ee

I've made the efforts I made to get ber here.

don't know why she is not. here.

THE COURT: Ms. Watts? e

MS. WATTS: I really have no other

alternative, Seer Honor.

THE COURT: Ms. Blimline?

MS. BLIMLINE: I would again request the

Court order she have an immediate psychiatric

evaluation.

THE COURT: There is little question about

that. Mr. Conti has indicated this is a lady in a

Crisis at this point, and the Court places great

weignt on Mr. Conti's views in that area. J#He has

indicated he has reviewed the material which I have

reviewed, and I am satisfied that his assessment is

an accurate assessment, especially superimposing upon

that what has happened between Ms.- Parsons and her

Client today. What she has reported today frightens

the daylights out of me. She was supposed to be

here, and she failed to appear. That tells me

something wrong may be going on.

Ms. Parsons, you have received a copy of

the Order to Show Cause?

MS. PARSONS: Yes.

THE COURT: You cannot respond to it until

, As 2026 ©

such time you have actually spoken with your client,

I woulc believe. Would that be accurate?

MS. PARSONS: Yes.

THE COURT: Upon consideration of the

Motion for Contempt, Petition for An Issuance of an

Order to Show Cause, it is this 20th day of April,

1988 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,

Division for Juvenile Causes, and the record should

reflect this court is designated by Chief Judge

Murphy, Court of Appeals, as the alternate Juvenile

Court judge of Baltimore City, it is ordered that

Jacqueline Bouknight, mother of the Respondent

infant, show cause at an immediate hearing as soon as

she is apprehended why the relief sought should not

be granted, provided that a copy of the Motion for

Contempt and Petition for the Issuance of the Order

to Show Cause, this order be served on her

immediately.

at one o'clock she was to be here, and she

is not here. So, we can't serve her. So, what I am

going to do is show cause at an immediate hearing. I

am going to cross out on your copies, if you look at

your copies, on April 20, 1988 at 1:00 p.m., and that

you have an immediate hearing after apprehension,

with the words to be inserted “before this court,"

p- 9027

why the relief sought should not be granted, and

provided a copy of this order to be served on her

immediately or as soon as possible. Cross out “at or

before the immediate hearing on this sateer* and

insert the words “to be served on her as soon as

possible.” Is that acceptable?

MS. BLIMLINE: Yes, Your Zonor.

THE COURT: All right. Good luck. I hope

and pray we have some success in getting the warrant

from Master Price, and I will ask to see the warrant

as well.

MS. BLIMLINE: The worker should be back

in a few moments, and he can give the Court other

addresses of relatives.

THE COURT: The warrant is being signed by

the Court at this time, and there will be no bail on

the warrant, because I want this lady brought before

me immediately.

(End of proceedings)

A- 3028

_—————— > ™ 6 QO ow oer

I, Carol J. Robinson, an Official Court Reporter

of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, do hereby certify

that I stenographically recorded the proceedings in the

mattter of IN THE MATTER OF MAURICE M_ —w, in the Circuit

Court for Baltimore City, Division for Juvenile Causes,

Petition No. 88704202, before the Honorable EDWARD J.

ANGELETTI, Judge, on April 20, 1988.

I further certify that the page numbers 2 through

28 constitute the official transcript . the proceedings as

transcribed by me from my stenographic notes to the within

typewritten matter in a complete and accurate manner.

In Witness Whereof, I have affixed my sisnature

-—-

this 19th day of May, 1988.

rol J. Robinson

Cfficial Court Reporter

= _ “ie

Man's X 7

For Period Prom:_ August 16, 1987

“Fo Pete

2s¥ S998)

Date: “#7 13, 1988:

to Mey 5, 1988

Maurice L. M way 18-87

vs Name) B03) (Doaxet No.) Court Urder)

Type of Court Orders Order of Protective Suervis ion

WOTEER; Jacqueline L. Boudoighe et - »-

- ADDRESS; 1726 5. Street ADDRESS: (deceased as of 3/11/88) :

y NO ee,

TELEPHONE BO.: SELEPHOHE WO. :

Child Protective Service investigscion initiated on 1/23/87 substareiared

1. yt yt pe physical abuse and neglect. Meurice had suffered severe physical injuries

when — while in che care of his avther.

én Maurice was placed in Foster Care from 2/10/87 uneil 7/17/87. Maurice wes

> ae ae. ordered returned to the care of his mother by the Court oi 7/17/87.

S- School progress = grade, | : —

“type of ad—

justment. ‘ NOT aPPLICULE .

6. Deseription of contacts - a

— og ee SEE ATTACHED CONTACT EES.

Te. Service plan for -child

child's parents. [1 supporting (3 tot supper:

——ADDEFE Status _ C2 Eligible C5 tneligibie

Fe Ctker problems and/ar

4 Agency contacts since

went ani in-

further needs). On 8/30/87, Maurice was seen at Prancis Scott Key Buergency Room due to

a high temperature. Prescription given. Mother filled prescription on

8/31/87 with assistance of Foster Care worker. No loxam subsequent

eedical acocintmencs. ;

®- 9030

. =

“a @

SO EE ee ——

9/1/87

9/4/87

: _>_ eee .

aie nine eee LEER igtiny: «tinea

DSS Contacts 8/18/87 througs-5/3/88-

Disposition Hearing; Crild to remain with aocher; Order of Procective Supervision;

Intake CPS Worker obtains signed consent from Ms. Bouknighr co obtain written

copy of the Psychologist's report; Family and Crildren's therapist hed s copy

but could not give such to the Department on S-i8-87.

Foster Care Worker to Lill con, Income Maintenence. Ghee needs 6 ua

catatshen chan Dest CHUL es Ten, te, Stated aan age antatving A00C.”

Foster Care Worker T/C from Mrs. Dixon, In-home Aide. Jackie Boukxight is noc

receiving AFDC yet; In-home Aide 4.V. Sev mother and child.

Foster Care Worker - Client requested Similac with

Iron formule axi diapers Maurice 104° temperature and she took

him to the doctor. ye ee php a ony Clienc

requested a new MA card for Meurice; Foster Care Worker and referral co

Emergency Services. Took Ms. Bouknight co 1500 Greemmoue -

for Emergency Food Assistance, give client some tokens, have her get a lecter

from the people she is staying with stating that they are providing housing and

some food and have her bring these letters to the WIC office Wednesday corning

on Eastern Averum. Took Mocher and child to Sears for clothing.

CPS Worker Appointmene letter sent to Ms. Boulcright at 1726 N. Washingron Streec.

Foster Care Worker T/C fron J. - Ms. Bouknight said she never came

to pick up che forms WIC and tokens because it was too hoc. She wanced m

cé mail it to her. Mrs. Dixon, In-home Aide, comes every Tuesday morming from

8230-11230;

to and H.V. with

and Maurice; Meurice appeared well-fed with

- Service agreemert discussed and signed by Ms.

GS Worker H.V. to Ms.

good affect ax

outright |

In-home Aide - H.V. Sew mother and child.

In-home Aide - H.V. with mother. Child noc there.

In-home Aide = H.V.; Sev mother who said not needed today. -

F.C. Worker from cliere and H.V. Ms. Bouloright called and said she

hed a requested a home visit. said she knew she hed to aove in

November but she will be aoving codazy as socom as she gets her check. I told her

I would be closing her case and thec she hes a P.S. worker but cher I would com au.

When I arrived, I wes told that her grandfather hed. juse caleen her over to Apple's

houses-_ He said thet he.doss.nce like ths psople-she-essociates with amd chet one

of them stole bis T.V. Greandfacher’s come is Join Bram.

A- 032

° ° CEs 2

PORMECET, Jacqueline

11/10/87 In-home Aide - unable to keep scheduled home visic with client.

1/17/87 In-home Aide - Attempted H.V. — no one responded.

11/24/87 In-home Aide = Attempted 1.V. — no one responded.

L/25/87 CPS Worker - Acterpted H.V. — no one responded.

oe a

12/1/87 CPS Worker ~ Sent appointment, lecter to schedule H.V. on 12/7/87.

12/7/87 Attempted T/C Contact. CPS Worker uneble to keep appoincment due to emergency -

in aother case. a.

12/7/87 CPS worker - T/C contact with F.C. Worker; client reportedly hes moved.

12/8/87 In-home Aide — Home Visit with mother; child was noe there. Client stated she had

moved to another residence ari would call. Plamed to go shopping next week.

12/10/87 In-home Aide = T/C - child answered the phone and said Ms. Bouotight had just

lefe.

12/14/87 In-home Aide - T/C with Ms. The Aide wanted to schedule a home visit

for 12/15/87. Ms. Boulcright declined saying she wes plarming to see Meurice’s

father. Se ee nae es Se nea Sh. SRPNEGS aes

Und CEES GAS CRED Sep eee Oo Wetlg Gs Gites.

12/18/87 In-home Aide T/C with Ms. Brown. Was cold Ms. Boukrighe did noc Live there anyoore.

s *

3/22/88 Informed by D.S.S./P.S. worker, Angela Collins (paternal relative) thec Terrance

Miles, father, has been shoc to death on 3/11/88 ac Washington and Lamale

Streets. Both parents alleged co be drug abusers. Ms. Boulcright reported

to be wandering about in a daze since the death of Mr. Miles.

All addicional contacts were by CPS Worker.

#12/23/87 Attempted H/V by CPS Worker - no response. .

2/5/88 Master File Clearance - attempt to locate new address.

Old address still listed.

, ae Ct) lake

A- 9033

3/23/88:

* 3/23/88:

3/23/88:

3/23/88;

3/23/88:

3/31/88:

4/7/88:

ROUIWICET, Jacquel ion , PACE |

Emergency HV to Ms. Jacqueline Bouknight at 9 2.2.

Ms. Bouknight not home. Worker spoke to former

foster father of Ms. Bouknight, Mr. John Brown

to and from hospical.

T/C €e Elle Smith of Medical Records of Francis Sco:

Key Hospital; last appointment for Maurice 5/22/87,

check-up, no concerns noted. Appointment

scheduled 9/9/87, no show. -

T/C co U of Md. Hospital Infant Study Progra,

Director, Ms. Gundy (328-6975 or 828-2485 and 828-2

T/C to Ms. Barbara McGhee, Intake Specialist,

U ef Md. Infant Study Program (328-2485)

T/C co Ms. Rose Blum, Secretary, Family & Children’

Society; no recent contact by Ms. Bouknight.

Counselom, Leslie Morris and Carol Hubbard have lef

Case closed on 7/31/87.

AMF clearance on Ms. Bouknight; current address for

AFDC grant - 1726 HN. Washington Street.

AMP clearance on paternal grandmother, Ms. Florence

mo current 30 case.

AMF clearance on Terrance M. Miles; last home addre

2250 Gable Avenue, $54214-76-8970, food stamp case .

30-635 304, case closed 11/1/87.

T/C co Ms. Jacqueline Bouknight (327-8873); no ensw

4/7/88:

6/7/88:

4/7/88:

4/7/68:

4/7/88:

4/8/88:

ze - b

to Ms. Edna Gardner of Chesapeake Health Pla:

at the FSKH; last sppointment by Maurice, 5/22/8:

appointment scheduled in September, tio show. .

Unsnnounced HV to former address of Terrence Mil«

at 1623 N. Durham Street; message left; no one he

T/C to Parent Aide Supervisor, Ms. Gloria Dixon

(X2076) to forward parent aide report

Attempted t/c to Parent Aide,Joanne Dix (X2075);

message left.

Attempted t/e to Dr. Timethy Deran (550-0967)

Attempted t/c to Dr. Sceven Cohen (955-6070)

t/e to Dr. Patricia Shearer of JHH (342.

T/C to JHB Social Worker, Rose Cariddi (955-8103)

last contact with Maurice in 4/87. =

T/C to Ms. Florence Dean (675-2683); last saw Maw

in 9/87. Ser son, Terrance Miles, was in North

Carolina. Ms. Dean confirmed thar her son, Terra

Miles, was shot to death on 3/11/88.

T/C to Parent Aide Supervisor, Gloria Dixon;

4/8/88:

4/8/68:

4/8/88:

4/11/88:

4/12/88:

. 4/12/88:

4/12/88:

4/14/88:

_ BOUOMLCET, Jacqueline | PASE

WY to Ms. Lillie Mae Bouknight at 5116

Avenue; message left regarding worker's concern

about Mseurice.

Attempted HV to Andrea Miles at 1450 Montpelier

Street (243-8934); no answer; no doorbell or asil bx

T/C to Ms. Florence Dean at 675-2683 and 522.2100;

Be new information Maurice. =

Mr. Charles Bouknight; worker spoke toe a Mr. Lee.

Attempted HV to Ms. Geneva McNeil at 1615 Biddle St:

(243-8934); no answer.

Attempted EV to last AMF address for Mr. Miles ~

2250 Gable Avenue; no such address.

Bouknight

with- her (327-8873).

T/C to Ms. Bouknight; would not schedule time wher

worker could see Maurice.

At 4 p.m., worker advised by PS Supervisor, James i .-

to file missing person's report with police.

Missing person's report or police report filed with

Officer Charles Klein of Eastern District (396-2433)

at 4:30 p.m. at 312 E. Oliver Street. Officer to go

directly to Ms. Bouknight’s address at

1726 BN. Washington Street.

T/C to Ms. Lillie Mae » Paternal grandmothe

5116 Queensberry Avenue (466-4904); Ms. Lillie Mac

Bouknight saw Maurice once in 10/86; has had no

contect with Ms. Jacqueline Bouknight. Ne relative

T/C te Mr. Charles Boukmight at Traveler's Aid

—~—"

4/12/88:

4/13/88:

4/13/88;

4/14/88:

4/15/88:

4/15/88;

4/15/88:

4/15/88;

4/17/88:

4/18/88:

in the evening when the vorker coul see

T/C te Officer Charles Klein at 396-2433;

OV wich PS Unit Chief, Leslie Ogungbemi; vorker

directed to contact SAO. Letter to IM worker to

suspend grant. Letter to Ms. Bouknighe iaformin

of actions taken. . :

T/C from Officer Klein ,

‘wefer case to Homicide to Sgt. Landsmann.(396~-272:

Perry had never seen the baby.

Case looks kinky. Officer thinks Ms. Bouknight 4:

something that has hurt Maurice.

. BOUKNICET, Jacqueline Pas , ica | 4/19/88: T/C to Mr. Charles Bouknight, Sr.; M-3, West

4/18/88. saagt, this worker surprised Ms. Jacqueline Boukni, . ° mot discuss Maurice with worker. Stated he did

Coming inte the home. Ms. Bouknight was in the | mot have Maurice.

Company of a man. Stated she vas emroute to pick 4/19/88: T/C te Charles Bouknight,Jx. (685-3569); had noc

oP Meurice and to take him to Francis Scott Key ¢)_ seen child in a long tine. Ms. Bouknight did nce

to be seen by Dr. Doran and that she would recorn mention child. Mr. Bouknight believed Ms. Bouknig¢

with Maurice at 4:30 p.m. on 4/18/88 to mot capable of caring for child.

1726 NH. Washington Sereet, for the worker to seq 4/19/88: T/C co Det. James Jones and OV by Det. Jones

| Maurice. Ms. Bouknight informed of the 4/21/33 1; 4/19/88: T/C to Chorles Bouknight; address ef his -facher ‘en

court _ ; »+t @ Thomasina in North Carolina given to worker.

4/18/88: T/C te Sgt. Stine of the Youth Division; Sgt. Sein, Mr. Bouknight requested that these relatives not

to have police officer meet worker at BN. Wash: - be contacted until after the 4/20/88 court hearing

at 4:30 p.2. A Worker stated urgent necessity of safeguarding chi

4/18/88: Worker flagged Baltinore City Police Officer Opher, and indicated that they would be contacted imeediz:

ef the Zastern District. Worker and Police Woman 4/20/88: T/C to Mr. Charles Bouknight (803) 796-2538 st 11::

went ta 1726 N. Washington Street. Only Mr. Brown and 12 noon; no answer.

at home. Mr. Brown stated that Ms. Bouknight but 4/20/88: T/C to a Thomasina (803)799-$567; a man named

not Msurice had slept at 1726 4B. Washington Street John B. answered; not a relative; didn't know anyt!

om the might of 4/17/88, but the person, Thomasina did live at that address.

4/16/88: Alert subsitted to Henry Hunt of Foster Care Intake 4/20/88: T/C to Parent Aide Supervisor, Gloria Dixon; messa;

end to Screening. left.

4/18/88: AMP clearance for Valerie Miles; no active case. 4/19/88: Unannounced HV to Leslie Miles, paternal sunt, et

4/18/88: T/C co Sgt. Seine of Youth Divisen (396=2042); case | 913 E. 30th Screet; last saw Maurice at the 2000 bt!

assigned te Det. Jones. | of Oliver and Gay Streets, in aid February, 1988.

4/18/88: T/C to Charles Bouknight (685-3569) at 104.2. " 4/20/88: Telegram sent to Thomasins Bouknight, regarding

Mr. Bouknight to call worker at 1 p.a./ whereabouts of Maurice Miles. No personal delivery

_ 4/18/88: Worker waited between 1 and 2 p.m. for_phone call f. of telegrams for West Columbia or Charles Boukni ght

: Mr. Charles Bouknight; no call. Operator #636. -

4/18/88: Attempted t/e to Andrea Miles, paternal aunt, who 4/20/88: Emergency court review hearing. Shelter care of

contacted DSS Supervisor, Merle Smith; who indicat« Maurice granted to DSS by Master Tesette Price.

she had not seen Maurice. Present - DSS Attorney, Marilyn Blimline; child's

4/18/88: T/C to Det. James Jones; nothing new on case. Work: attorney, Lisa Watts, Legal Aid attorney for Mauric

suggested photograph of mother end to accompany end Robin Parsons, OPD for Ms. Bouknight. Also

Det. Jenes. rn Jones Stated he would rely on : wee Jones of the Youth Division,

cooperation Ms. Bouknight. Worker emphasized the °

possibility of this being a murder case. 4/20/88: Motion fer contempt and petition for the issuance

4/19/88: 9 a.m. effice visic by Ms. Bouknight. Ms. Bouknighrt Suan — ye he ay a

questioned this worker Tegarding court hearing for Lisa Watts, Robin’ Parsons, and this worker.

4/20/88. “Aare geing to snatch wy child?” Det. Sunes eae present although informed of court

Worker replied that it was up to court. Ms. Boukni,! hearing.

a oa all I wanted to know.” Ms. Bouknt ° =

lefe ice. She then returned asking for token: Edvard Angeletti (396-30 ssued

to ge te school. In the waiting room Ms. Bouknight yy Cause —_ - sean Seem ¢

stated, “I'm going to kill myself. Are you going answer to the court

<o put that in your record?” Worker replied, yes. court hearing of 4/20/88,

live without his. I won't have any reason to live

then.” Ms. Bouknight eppeared to be on the verge of court hearing.

as. Secintene token Judge Angeletti isused « bench warrant for Ms. Boukn:

7 one se

4/19/88: Case conference with Supervisor, Merle Saith. “an a

Worker not obliged to transport Ms. Bouknight to ment: .

seacurees- 4 ~ 9038 A 8039

4/20/88:

4/21/88:

4/22/88:

4/22/88;

4/22/88:

BOWDNICET, Jacqueline B/

Ms. Bouknight to be brought immediately before

Judge Angeletti and be given an immediate

psychological end evaluation by the

court medical officer, Nick Conti.

T/C co Det. James Jones; informed of court order.

Det. Jones indicated that he had a copy of th« v:

9161-88. Det. Jones reminded of life and death :

ef the case. ‘ .

(X3282) at Collington Square, to suspend AFDC gr:

ef Ms. Bouknight and to alert her and district

regarding Maurice. Copy of memo also sent to

Johnson (X3257).

T/C to Sgt. Seine of Youth Division; Det. Jones h

spoken to a Sheila Davis at 1729 N. Washington St

who stated to Det. Jones that she had seen Mauric

with Ms./Bouknight on that day. . .

T/C to Det. James Jones; Det. Jones advised that

case should be regarded as a homicide and that no

responsible employee of city or hogital had secn

ehild.

T/C co Sgt. Stine of the Youth Division; Det. Jon

looking for Ms. Bouknight at that soment.

9a.m. t/e to Det. Jones - :

T/C to court clerk for Judge Angeletti; Eric McDo

worker quoted Det. James Jones, “that mother is

going to have to help us.”

Street on the night of 4/21/88.

T/C to Det. Jones, who spoke to a Ms. Sophronia

° Brown, at 1726 a. Vashin;

end

eccoupany his to howe as he had never seen Ms.. 3

4/22/88:

4/25/88:

4/25/88;

4/26/ 88:

4/ 26/ 88:

4/27/88:

T/C from Ms. Hicks; instructed by District Manage:

Thomas Piscicelli that photo ID of: Ms. Bouknighr :

only be issued to worker or DSS personnel.

Visic to Collington Square District to Ms. Hicks;

photo given to worker who gave photo to Det. Oliv:

and Jones.

T/C to Shife Commander, 9. Harding; Officer Klei:

went to 1726 N. Washington Street. Ms. Bouknight

- To have another officer try again on night

of 4/26/88.

T/C with Det Rosinski, Chief of PS; Dot Rosinski

to contact Youth Divisen of BCP on morning of 4/27

to request chat greatest attention be given to the

matter as it is a possible homicide. |

T/C from Le. Kibler of the Youth Divison (396-2042

Ms. Bouknight in police custody. Alert for child.

- 44/27/88:

4/28/88:

On 4/27/88, us. mode a HV

Court, home of = ad ee Johany 4 yay ae ~-

also checked _ home. Ms. Hopkins

medical records at the Richland Menor

Mrs. Brunson did feve that aren

was caring for tg Mr. Bouknight, Sz

—— Hampton Street

lumbia, South Caroline 29204

Telephone # (ares cede 603) 256—4200, x105.

putative relatives in Lexi County

T/C to Ms. Janet Dias, say Director, Child

gg 7 and a Services (803) 734-5670.

Cwo workers. sent out. on: 4/27/88 regarding both ox

Interview by Det. Shawn Dashiell ed

- ef the Youth

regarding case record _—

BOUKNIGET, Jecquelize

Ms. Bouknight stated that Maurice is with her sists

at 3417 Denton Avenue, Dallas, Texas.

On 6/28/88, Le. Kibler informed Det. Shawn Dashiel)

5/4/88 - T/C from Detective James Jones of the Youth Section, Baltimore City Police,

396-2042. Detective Jones requesting worker to meet with Detective Richard

° Palhteich of Homicide Division of Baltimore City Police (9:50:a.zs.)

5/4/88 - 11:00 a.m. — Interview of worker by Detective Richard Pahlteich of Homicide,

Baltimore City Police at 500 East Baltimore Street, 396-2721.

5/3/88 - Detective Dashiell indicates that Charles Bouknight, Sr., M-3 West Columbia

= Apartments, West Columbia, South Carolina, (ac 803) 796-2438, and that

the response was negative that Hr. Bouknight did now know of Maurice's

whereabouts. Detective Dashiell indicated that Police were checking out

fourteen different individuals with the name of Bouknight in South Carolina.

wi btng if

IN THE MATTER OF : IN THE

MAURICE M7 : CIRCUIT COURT

: FOR

i Se

BALTIMORE CITY.

DIVISION FOR JUVENILE CAS)

PETITION NO.: 88704202

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Upon consideration of the aforegoing Motion for

| Contempt and Petition for the Issuance of an Order to Show

Cause, it is this a6 day of "

1988, by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Division for

Juvenile Causes, ne

ORDERED that JACQUELINE BOUKNIGHT, Mother of the

Res ent infant, show cause at an immediate hearing On Ars

Aeon oppe kn" before JUDGE EDWARD J. ANGELETTI, why th

relief sought therein should not be granted, provided that <

copy of the Motion for Contempt and Petition for the Issuance

of an Order to Show Cause, and this Order be served on

JACQUELINE BOUKNIGHT, Mother, ; =

. —

2 ean ae Oe ee ee en

pom

MATTER OF Ris IN THE

MAURICE 4 . * CIRCUIT COURT

SORN: OCTOBER 3, 1986 * FOR .

* BALTIMORE CITY '

* DIVISION FOR JUVENILE CAUSE

* PETITION NUMBER: 388704202

MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND PETITION FOR THE

~~ TSStancs so: AN OROSR 10 SHOM cnuSs

Pursuant to Rule 910(e) of the Maryland Rules of

Procedure, Petitioner, the Department of Sccial Services of

Baltimore City (hereinalcer referrec to as the 3COSS), by it

for the Issuance of an Crder tO show cause asainst JaCQUELIN

BCUKNIGHT, and in stssors of that setition alleges tnat:

1) On January 23, 1987, the 3CDSS received a repe

of suspected physical asuse of the Respondent. The BCDSS

investigated this resor= from Or. TIMOTHY CcRAN Of the Franc

Scott Key Medical Center, and confirmed physical abuse anc

neslect of the Ressonden= while in the diract care and super

sion of JACQUELINE SOTKNISHT, the Ressoncen='s mother.

2) On February 10, 1987, BCDSS cdtained an Autacr

tion of Shelter Care to srevent the, Ressoncent from being

released from the Francis Scott Key Medical Center to the C2

of JACQUELINE BOUKNIGHT. On february 11, 1987, a petition ‘

m- 0045

“oem «

'_—r-: oo --*

V—-_- -—— ——_ - =

filed oy SCOSS, alleging the Responses to be a Chile ix Need

of Assistance. That same cav a Shelter Care Hearing was reld

before Master Joyce Mitchell. BSasec on allegations of asuse

and neglect of the Ressoncent, the Cours issued Orders --

)

Shelter Care on the Ressoncent for slacement in fostar rare 57

sAe 38CDSS.

3) On May 13, 1987, an Acjusicatory Hearing was helc

on the CINA Petition Sefora Master covea Hitehell. <A sasarate

Dispositional Hearins was scheduled for July 17, 1937, ana the

Orcer of shelter Car2 to 3°5S5 was consinued until that sate.

4). On July 17,

1337, size Sissositional Hearing wes

postponed pending the complation of a ssychological exa=inatic:

of JACQUELINE SJOUKVIGAT Tre SCDSS' raecuest for contin<acion

of the Order of Shelter Care of tha Resdondcent was cenies Sy

Master Joyce Mitchell, and this Ressoncent was returnec <5 the

Care of his mother, pending Dissosition.

5S) A Dispositional Hearings was held on this =acter

on August 18, 1987, and the Ressoncen= was found to be [lina

and was placed uncer an Orcer of Protective Supervision <s the

BCOSS for placement with his mother with the followins cconditioc

A. Progress recorts every six months;

B. Mother shall cooperate with 38CDSS;

C. Mother shall attene Cefter for Infant Stusies at

‘the University of Naryland until discharse-

D. Mother shall continue to utilize services 3:

parent ide as provided Sy BCDSS;

A- 0046

=. Mother shall refrain from shysically sunishing

the Resnoncent

6) The Ressoncent's mother has failed to cooperate

with the SCOSS, ia attemots. to ensure the safety of the Ressoa;

Gent in that she has reseateidcy failed to inform the Perisions

of the Ressoncen='’s whereasouts. On March 23, 19383, a nome vi

was mace to verity the safety of the Resscondcent, nowever, thre

Ressoncant's mother was unadle to se contactad. UR. JO#N 3ROt

tne former foster facner of JACQUELINE BOUXNIGHT, informed thi

sa 23,

Petitioner that he nac seen the Resvondent on Mar 1388,

che care of JACQUELINE 3SCUKNIGHT, and that iis. Zouxnignt

resiced in tne home.

7) On April 7, 1988, a nome visit was mace and she

Respondent's mother intormedc the Peritioner that the Ressonde:

was in the care of an aunt, however, she refused to identizy

tne aunt or provice the whereabouts of the child.

8) On April &, 1988, the Petitioner made att <empts |

locate the Ressondent through the following relatives: FLCORENC

DEAN, the paternal grandmotaer; ANOREA MILES, the saternal au

LILLIE WAE BOUXWIGHT, tne maternal grandmother, CHARLES SOUANT

JR., the paternal uncle. Each of tnese relatives repors that

they had not seen the Respondent for an extended period of &

9) The Baltimore City Police Department was contac

On April 2, 1988, ana a Missing Persons Resort was filed on t

Respondent by the Petitioner. The Respondent's mother mis~

sndeupes the investigating officer that the Responcent was in

care of an aunt, LOUISE PERRY, however, ts. Perry denies. seei

er a

e+: Peeneetene .

_— ~ | ” kme ary ™ 7 . 7

‘eal

: ; : a

after repeated attempts to ascertain the whereabouts of the | CSRS ICATE OF SERVICE

Ressondent from JACQUELINE BOUKNIGHT, this case was referred %& ‘ |

the Homicide Division for further investigation due to concern 1-HEREBY CERTIFY that on this ue Ta. cay «

over the weidees of the Respondent. | April , 1988, a copy of the foregoing

) 7 -——— -

10) JACQUELINE BOUKNIGHT continued to refuse to dis: | MOTION FOR CONTEMPT & PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER TO S

= = « ; tn” “—-

close the whereasouts of the Ressoncent during a home visit CAUSS was mailed to the <3: lowing:

maG2 on April 18, 1988, by the Petitioner, as well as during a:

Robin Parscns, Esquire

Public Cecender ’ s office

201 St. Facl Place |

Baltimore, “Uaryland- 21202

- Attsrney for Mother

ctZice visit mace on asril 19, 1986, at the B8COSS. Ms.

BCUKNIGHT informed the Petitioner that she was going to kill

nerself, repeating a second time that she woulcée xill herself !

——— SF Se ee A +:

fslilowing the Court Rearing on April 20, 1986.

2. Leonard Schwartz, Escuire

Legal ais 3ureau

714 E. Pratt Street ia

Baltimere, Marylance 21202

- Atterzeyv for Ressoncen=

RETORE, the Petitioner respectfully Srays that th:

oc ommes @

——_——— — oe

Csuse: 1) Issue the accompanying Order, direcciac is.

"SSR gas aactaem

GaCSUELINE BOUKNIGHT to show cause why an Order adjucginsg her

tc se in comtempt shall not be passed: 2) Fine the mother in

contempt of Court; 3) Order Ns. JACQUELINE SOCUKNIGAT to

smuediately produce the Respondent to the jurisdiction of tie

csurt; 4) I tne mother fails to produce the Ressondenc at ¢t:

A¢judicatory Hearing, Orcer that the mother be found in direct

Contempt and take whatever measures the Court feels is avoroor:

including but not limited to incarceration and/or a fine; §

e ~

Se ee EE EE A RE ee ae

Se ee EE EE EE SE Gee a ee & ees oe

‘

4 ;

AL ie a bs aoe di ae wl

Departmenta Attorney

Department of Social Ser

Tax@ such other relief as the nature of this cause may recuire

oes

ee ee oe oe

, | i ? of Baltimore City .

i s Legal Services Division

gepartmenta 1 Attorney > . 1510 Guilford Avenue

Department cf Social Services of Baltizore, Maryland 212

Baltimore City

Legal Services Division

9048 1510 Guilford Avenue

Saltimore, Maryland 21202 7 ’ —

‘elephone: pekon é? , Pw ' ee —

‘ ~ te . - . . 7 - a wos

Telephone: 361-2443

‘

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.