In re: K.B.

In Re: K.B., No. 52, September Term, 2025 CHILD IN NEED OF ASSISTANCE (CINA) – PERMANENCY PLAN – INITIAL REVIEW HEARING – Supreme Court of Maryland held that presumptive permanency plan of reunification established at time of disposition hearing in child in need of assistance (“CINA”) case, in which child is placed out of home, is not permanency plan determined pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. (1974, 2020 Repl. Vol.) (“CJ”) § 3-823 and that child must be provided hearing in which permanency plan is determined pursuant to requirements of CJ § 3-823. In addition, following disposition hearing in which child is declared CINA and enters out-of-home placement, all parties are entitled to notice of date and time and purpose of hearing at which permanency plan will be determined or reviewed, not just notice that plan may be determined or changed at point in future.  Circuit Court for Baltimore County Case No. C-03-JV-24-000804 Argued: April 8, 2026 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MARYLAND No. 52 September Term, 2025 ______________________________________ IN RE: K.B. ______________________________________ Fader, C.J. Watts Booth Biran Gould Eaves Killough, JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Watts, J. ______________________________________ Filed: June 22, 2026 Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 2026.06.22 12:54:21 -04'00' Gregory Hilton, Clerk  In Maryland, a local department of social services may file a petition seeking to have a child found to be a child in need of assistance—generally referred to by the acronym “CINA.” See Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. (1974, 2020 Repl. Vol.) (“CJ”) §§ 3-801, 3-809. CINA actions are designed to provide protection for children who are abused, neglected, or in need of care for other reasons, see CJ § 3-801(f), with the goal of ensuring that a child’s best interests are served, while giving priority to preservation of the family, see CJ §§ 3-802(a), 3-809(a). If the juvenile court decides that a child is a CINA, the court must determine the services that the child requires, which may range from ordering services for the child and parents, such as counseling or parenting classes, or placing the child outside of the home. See CJ §§ 3-801(m), 3-819. After a petition is filed, regular review hearings must be conducted to monitor the child’s status. See CJ § 3-816.2. If a child is placed outside of the home, under Maryland law, a permanency plan hearing must be held within 11 months of the child’s placement to establish a long-term plan for the child’s care. See CJ § 3-823. In this case, the Baltimore County Department of Social Services (“the Department”), Petitioner, initiated an action in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, sitting as a juvenile court (“the juvenile court” or “the court”), seeking to have an infant, K.B., declared a CINA. In the petition, the Department alleged that K.B. was a child in need of assistance (a CINA) because K.B. had been abused and neglected by her mother, H.B. (“Mother”). The Department described an incident in which a Baltimore Police Department (BPD) officer observed Mother engaging in abusive behavior with respect to K.B. on a public street, and intervened and arrested Mother. The Department stated that K.B. had been “sheltered to the Department of Social Services due to concerns of physical abuse/neglect[,]” and that Mother had been the subject of an emergency mental health petition, after expressing suicidal ideations. According to the Department, Mother acknowledged having several mental health diagnoses. The Department alleged that Mother has an “extensive child welfare history across several states including Maryland” and that her parental rights had been “terminated for multiple children due to concerns related to her mental health.” The Department informed that Mother refused to provide the name of K.B.’s father and stated that she did not have any family. The Department advised that continuation of K.B. in Mother’s home was contrary to the child’s welfare.1 At an adjudication/disposition hearing, the juvenile court sustained the allegations in an amended petition, with Mother’s agreement. The juvenile court declared K.B. a CINA, determined that it was not possible to return K.B. to Mother, and issued an order committing K.B. to the custody of the Department. Despite Mother having a history of prior involuntary termination of her parental rights with respect to other children, the juvenile court did not make a finding, under CJ § 3-812(b), that the local department was not required to provide reunification services because the case involved circumstances such as chronic abuse or prior involuntary termination of parental rights. As required by CJ § 3-819(f)(2), the adjudication/disposition order stated “that the permanency plan of 1 The Department subsequently filed an “Amended CINA Petition[,]” which identified K.B.’s father based on information provided by Mother at the shelter care hearing. -2- reunification may be changed to another permanency plan, which may include the filing of a petition for termination of parental rights[,]” under specified circumstances. (Capitalization omitted). The juvenile court scheduled an initial review hearing for January 17, 2025, and the permanency plan hearing for June 16, 2025. After the adjudication/disposition hearing, the Department began providing reunification services to Mother. At the initial review hearing, the Department recommended that K.B.’s permanency plan be changed from the sole plan of reunification with a parent to a concurrent plan of reunification and adoption by a relative or non-relative, and a magistrate adopted the recommendation. Mother filed exceptions to the magistrate’s recommendation. The juvenile court overruled the exceptions and signed an order purporting to change the permanency plan from reunification to a concurrent plan of reunification and adoption by a non-relative. Mother filed a timely appeal. The Appellate Court of Maryland held that the juvenile court established a permanency plan before it should have and reversed the judgment of the juvenile court and remanded the case to that court for further proceedings. See In re K.B., No. 295, Sep. Term, 2025, 2025 WL 2717343, at *1, *6 (Md. App. Ct. Sep. 24, 2025). In this case, we must determine whether, after a child is declared a CINA, the juvenile court may change, at an initial review hearing, the permanency plan of reunification, which exists after a disposition in which a child is declared a CINA and removed from the home, to a permanency plan that includes both reunification with the -3- child’s parent and adoption. We hold that the permanency plan of reunification that is established after a disposition in which a child is declared a CINA and removed from the child’s home is not a permanency plan determined under CJ § 3-823 and that a child must be provided a hearing in which a permanency plan is determined pursuant to the requirements of CJ § 3-823 and Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law (1984, 2019 Repl. Vol.) (“FL”) § 5-525, within 11 months after a child committed under CJ § 3-819 enters an out-of-home placement. Additionally, all parties are entitled to reasonable notice, prior to a hearing at which a permanency plan will be determined or reviewed, of the date and time of the hearing and that, at the hearing, the permanency plan may be determined or changed, not simply notice after disposition that the permanency plan of reunification may be changed to a different plan at some future point in time. None of the above happened in this case. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court, which reversed the juvenile court’s judgment and remanded the case to that court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. BACKGROUND The CINA Petition: Factual Allegations On August 15, 2024, the Department filed in the juvenile court a “CINA Petition with Request for Continued Shelter Care” for K.B. In the petition, the Department alleged that K.B. was a CINA due to the following circumstances. On August 13, 2024, BPD Officer Norman Jones saw Mother at the corner of Gay and E. Fayette Streets, walking with K.B. in a stroller. Officer Jones observed Mother become “verbally and physically -4- aggressive” toward K.B., yelling at K.B. to “shut the f[***] up” multiple times and “reaching down to hit the baby on or around her feet.” When Officer Jones saw Mother pick up K.B.’s bottle and reach back as if she was going to hit K.B., he intervened and yelled for Mother to stop. Mother then picked up K.B. and began shaking her, which prompted Officer Jones to leave his car and remove K.B. from Mother. Officer Jones arrested Mother and called an EMT to transport K.B. to a hospital. While detained, Mother was questioned by BPD personnel in an attempt to get information about K.B.’s father and any family support. Mother would not disclose the name of K.B.’s father and advised that she did not have any family. Mother made statements expressing suicidal ideations, which led officers to “emergency petition[]” her and transport her to Johns Hopkins Hospital for an evaluation. Mother also disclosed that she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety, and denied taking medication or receiving any type of mental health treatment. Mother “has extensive child welfare history across several states including Maryland” and “has had her parental rights terminated for multiple children due to concerns related to her mental health.” Mother has had “her rights terminated in regard[] to her 4 year old daughter[,]” and “[t]he Department has guardianship of th[e] child.” K.B. was discharged from the hospital and placed in a Baltimore City foster home. The Department alleged that despite reasonable efforts in the form of the completion of a child protective services risk assessment and an attempt to locate relatives to prevent the need for out-of-home placement, continuation of K.B. in Mother’s home would be contrary to her welfare. The Department requested that the Court continue K.B. in shelter care and -5- “make such findings and dispositions as the law provides[.]” Procedural History 1. Shelter Care and Adjudication/Disposition Hearings On August 15, 2024, the juvenile court held the shelter care hearing, and K.B. was “sheltered” to the Department. During the shelter care hearing, Mother provided the name and phone number of a person who she identified as K.B.’s father. On September 6, 2024, in anticipation of the adjudication/disposition hearing, the Department filed a report titled “Court Report: Request for Commitment.” In the report, the Department summarized the circumstances necessitating its intervention and advised that Mother had been discharged from the hospital on August 14, 2024, the day after her arrest and emergency petition. Since August 14, 2024, K.B. had been living in an agency- approved foster home. After an initial stay at a foster home in Baltimore City, K.B. had been moved to the same Baltimore County foster home in which her older sibling, R.B., was residing. Mother had already consented to the termination of her parental rights with respect to R.B. and the Department had guardianship of R.B. As of the date of the report, K.B. continued to reside in the foster home with her sister and was said to be “a beautiful baby who [was] adjusting well to her placements and to daycare.” The Department advised that K.B. is Mother’s seventh child. When Mother lived in Massachusetts, between 2011 and 2018, the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (“MA DCF”) removed five of her children from her care. Mother’s parental rights have been terminated with respect to four of the children, not counting R.B., and Mother had been charged and pled guilty to child pornography offenses that involved R.B. The -6- Department also reported that Mother has an extensive history of mental health conditions; MA DCF reported that Mother has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder with psychosis, PTSD, anxiety, and anger issues. In addition, according to the Department, Mother reported that she has previously been diagnosed with “Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Intellectual Disability, and Specific Learning Disability[.]” The Department noted that visitation between Mother and K.B. took place on August 26, 2024, and that the Department would continue to arrange visitation. The Department advised that at the shelter care hearing, Mother provided a name and contact information for K.B.’s father. According to the Department, Father had requested a paternity test that would be arranged. The Department advised that Mother is eligible for disability benefits. According to the Department, on April 9, 2023, Mother completed a neuropsychological evaluation with a Dr. Eric Lane, Psy.D., which resulted in a diagnosis of “Unspecified Neurodevelopmental Disorder,” PTSD, “Unspecified Bipolar-and Related Disorder, and Panic Disorder.” The Department reported that, on June 29, 2023, and July 5, 2023, Mother completed a “Psychological Evaluation of Parenting Capacity” with a Dr. Robert Kraft. According to the Department, Dr. Kraft reported that Mother “‘lacks minimally adequate parenting capacity, due to extremely low parent awareness skills, extremely low knowledge of appropriate parenting practices, disruptions in thought process, and disorganized behavior. Additionally, very low verbal reasoning skills inhibits concept formation and contributes to impairment in judgement [sic].’” The Department advised that Dr. Kraft reported that Mother’s prognosis is “poor[,]” and that as a result of the evaluation, Mother -7- had been diagnosed with major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, alcohol use disorder, unspecified personality disorder with paranoid and schizotypal features, and borderline intellectual functioning. In addition, in 2024, Mother completed an “Evaluation of Sexual Risk” with a Dr. LaFaye Marshall, in which Dr. Marshall stated that Mother “‘presents with risk factors that increase the likelihood of sexual recidivism[.]’” According to the Department, Dr. Marshall recommended that Mother “not have any unsupervised contact with any children, complete psychosexual psychotherapy and submit to random drug testing.” The Department advised that K.B. was born in March 2024, and that, after her birth, Mother had received services from the Carroll County Department of Social Services, but the case was closed when Mother moved to Baltimore City in May 2024. The Department stated that “[r]easonable but unsuccessful efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for a CINA finding on behalf of the Respondent child due to the emergent need. No relatives were identified.” As to disposition of the matter, the Department recommended that K.B. be declared a CINA and committed to the Department, with the Department granted “Limited Guardianship of [K.B.] for educational, medical, dental and mental health services, including but not limited to inpatient psychiatric treatment and the administration of psychotropic drugs, and for out of state travel[.]” The Department recommended that Mother complete: • “a mental health evaluation and sign release of information form(s) for said services and follow recommendations until services are successfully completed”; and -8-  • “parenting classes and anger management classes and sign release of information form(s) for said services[.]” The Department recommended that visitation between Mother and K.B. be supervised and that Mother “obtain and maintain safe, stable, and hazard-free housing appropriate for” K.B. On September 11, 2024, the Department filed an “Amended CINA Petition” updating information regarding the identity of K.B.’s father based on information obtained from Mother during the shelter care hearing. The amended petition is identical to the original petition, except that the allegation that K.B.’s father was unknown was replaced with information about the person identified by Mother. On September 20, 2024, counsel for Mother, counsel for the Department, and counsel for K.B. appeared before the juvenile court for the adjudication and disposition hearing.2 At the adjudicatory hearing, pursuant to an agreement between the parties, counsel for the Department summarized the allegations in the petition. Counsel for Mother advised the court that Mother would neither “admit nor deny the allegations” but was “not asking for an adversarial hearing.” Counsel for Mother stated that Mother “was going through postpartum depression. She is engaged and desirous to work towards reunification in this case.” The court sustained the allegations in the amended petition, stating that it was doing so “[b]y agreement.” At the disposition part of the hearing, the parties advised the court that they had 2 Neither Mother nor K.B., who was six months old at the time, were present at the hearing. -9- agreed that K.B. should be declared a CINA and committed to the Department, with the Department granted limited guardianship, and supervised visitation for the parents. The following colloquy occurred as the court accepted the agreement: [DEPARTMENT’S COUNSEL]: Today, the Department is asking that the Respondent be found a Child In Need of Assistance, and committed to the Department, with limited guardianship to the Department. The Department is recommending that visits between Mother and Respondent be liberal and supervised. Father, . . . if he is indeed established to be the Father, will need to contact the Department to establish visitation. THE COURT: [K.B.’s counsel]. [K.B.’S COUNSEL]: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. On behalf of the Respondent, we are in agreement at this time that the child should be found a Child In Need of Assistance, and committed to the Department. We also agree to limited guardianship, and supervised visitation. I did have a chance to see K.[B.] in her placement. I actually represent the sibling, R.B. (phonetic), as well. So, both children are in the same foster home. K.[B.] is doing wonderfully. She’s in good health at this time, and ... the foster parent, is a long-term resource if needed in this case, as well. Her sibling is actually set, I believe, to be adopted really within the next couple months. But, for K.[B.]’s purposes, she’s doing well. We’re in agreement that she should be committed at this time. THE COURT: [Mother’s counsel]. [MOTHER’S COUNSEL]: Yes. Again, we are in agreement, and my client makes no admissions of any sort, and (unintelligible). *** THE COURT: Okay. I do find, based both on the agreement and upon my review of the Court Report and the other representations made, I will award or find for commitment to the Department with the guardianship, and supervised visitation at the discretion of the Department. Okay? [DEPARTMENT’S COUNSEL]: Thank you, Your Honor. I believe we just need to get an initial review date, and a permanency date. - 10 -  THE COURT: Yes. Before adjourning the hearing, the court scheduled an initial review hearing for January 17, 2025, and a permanency planning hearing for June 16, 2025. On the same day of the hearing, the court issued an adjudication/disposition order stating that the allegations in the CINA petition had been proven by a preponderance of the evidence and that “all paragraphs of the Amended CINA Petition dated September 11, 2024” were sustained. Under the section of the order labeled “Disposition[,]” the court declared K.B. to be a CINA, committed her to the custody of the Department, granted the Department temporary limited guardianship, and ordered that visitation between Mother and K.B. be “liberal and supervised as arranged by” the Department.3 The order stated that Mother shall: (1) cooperate with the Department by providing family background information; (2) sign Release of Information forms regarding educational, medical, mental health, and substance abuse services and treatment that are necessary to provide services to the child and family; (3) allow scheduled and unscheduled home visits; (4) maintain consistent contact with the Department and update the Department about any changes in contact information or circumstances; (5) obtain/maintain safe[,] stable, and hazard- free housing appropriate for the Respondent; (6) submit to a mental health evaluation and follow said recommendations and sign release of information forms; (7) participate in parenting and anger management classes, and sign releases of information. Consistent with CJ § 3-819(f)(2), pre-written language on the last page of the adjudication/disposition form order stated: 3 The court ordered that Father contact the Department to be assessed for visitation before any visitation would be scheduled and that Father cooperate with the Department by providing family background information. - 11 -  THAT THE PERMANENCY PLAN OF REUNIFICATION MAY BE CHANGED TO ANOTHER PERMANENCY PLAN, WHICH MAY INCLUDE THE FILING OF A PETITION FOR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS IF THE PARENTS: (1) have not made significant progress to remedy the circumstances that caused the need for removal as specified in this court order OR (2) are unwilling or unable to give the child proper care and attention within a reasonable period of time OR (3) the child has been in an out-of-home placement for 15 out of the last 22 months[.] 2. The Initial Review Hearing In preparation for the initial review hearing, the Department filed a report dated January 7, 2025, titled “CINA Review Hearing[,]” which summarized information pertaining to the case under sections labeled, among other things, “Current Circumstances of Youth,” “Status of Family,” “Visitation,” “Reasonable Efforts,” “Permanency Plan,” and “Recommendations.” With respect to K.B.’s then-current status, the Department reported that K.B. was a 10-month-old baby who was thriving in a foster home with her sister and that there were no concerns. As to the status of the family, the Department advised that Mother was enrolled in parenting classes with “The Family Tree” but did not start the program due to “phone issues.” As to housing, according to the Department, Mother had provided lease documentation and requested assistance with late rent. Mother was said to be looking for employment. And, the Department reported that Mother had been discharged from “Project Chesapeake due to lack of attendance with the program and [Mother] did not give proper notification to cancel or reschedule two consecutive mental health appointments.” The Department reported that Mother confirms for parent-child visits “on time” and comes to the Department for visits. The Department advised that there had been concerns - 12 - in the beginning that Mother had asked if the one-hour visits could end early. The Department stated, however, that the “[v]isits are going well” and noted that two-hour visits had been extended to Mother when staff had been unavailable or the facility had been closed. According to the Department, Mother had advised the author of the report that she is pregnant and “keeping the baby.” The Department reported having made contact with maternal relatives who initially expressed interest but “decided not to go forward with the process to be a possible placement” for K.B. Nonetheless, under the section of the report labeled “Reasonable Efforts,” the Department reported that it had developed a “case plan” that included a concurrent permanency plan of reunification and custody and guardianship to a relative, stating: In compliance with COMAR 07.02.11.13 and SSA policy #13-2, within 60 days after removal, the local department, together with the child’s parent or legal guardian, shall develop a written case plan for each child in out-of- home placement. The case plan shall include concurrent permanency plans. Currently, Baltimore County DSS is working on a permanency plan of reunification and custody and guardianship to a relative. This is reflected in the case plan as well as the service plan completed with the youth and family.[4] Under the section of the report labeled “Permanency Plan,” the Department recommended that the permanency plan be changed from reunification to “reunification concurrent with adoption by non relative and relative.” The Department stated that five of Mother’s children (which included R.B.) have been adopted, that another child is in the 4 The Department also provided a list of the services/referrals that had been given in the case. The Department reported that it provided services such as making contact with Father, contacting Mother about visitation, and completing referrals for Mother to attend parenting and anger management classes. - 13 - custody of Mother’s family, and that the Department had ongoing concerns regarding Mother’s mental health and her ability to appropriately parent a child. The Department recommended the continued commitment of K.B. under the circumstances set forth in the adjudication/disposition order. On January 17, 2025, a magistrate conducted the initial review hearing, as a remote proceeding, during which the Department’s January 7, 2025 report was admitted into evidence. At the review hearing, counsel for the Department summarized information from the report, which in the Department’s view indicated that Mother had “not necessarily [been] compliant.” Counsel for the Department acknowledged that it was early in the process to change the permanency plan but stated that in light of Mother’s “history with the other child[,]” the Department did “not necessarily feel that reunification by itself would be a successful plan.” Counsel for the Department asked “that the plan change[] to a concurrent plan of reunification, concurrent with adoption by a non-relative,” and that the case be reviewed in 6 months. Mother’s counsel argued that information in the report concerning Mother was incorrect and that the report demonstrated that the Department had reached a conclusion— the proposed change of the permanency plan from reunification to reunification and adoption—and attempted to justify the conclusion with a narrative in the report. Mother’s counsel contended that in its report the Department attempted “to justify an inappropriate, entirely too soon conclusion to change the plan at the 5-month mark,” and that “this [wa]s not even a permanency plan review hearing[.]” Mother’s counsel asserted that, contrary to the information in the report, Mother had been extremely involved and engaged with K.B. - 14 - and had encountered one “blip” in being discharged from Project Chesapeake for missing two appointments but had immediately reengaged with the program.5 Mother’s counsel advised that Mother’s visits with K.B. had gone “flawlessly[,]” that Mother had always confirmed the visits and been on time, and that she is “extremely appropriate” with K.B. Mother’s counsel informed the magistrate that Mother had been advised by a Department worker that in March or April her visits with K.B. could switch to unsupervised visitation. Mother, who was present at the hearing, addressed the magistrate on her own behalf. Mother advised that she understood that she had “a history in other states[,]” but that she was stable and had a place to live. Mother stated that she was “willing to do anything . . . for [her] daughter, because [she] love[s] her[,]” and that she “just want[ed] to be given a chance[.]” 5 Mother’s counsel advised that he had submitted documents demonstrating that Mother had reengaged with Project Chesapeake. Mother’s counsel refuted information in the Department’s report that indicated that Mother failed to attend anger management classes after the Department had paid for the classes. Mother’s counsel advised that part of the attachments that he had provided were emails demonstrating that the Department acknowledged that it had only recently paid the provider of the anger management classes and that the classes were set to begin on February 25, 2025. Mother’s counsel also advised that he had submitted information from “The Family Tree” regarding Mother’s attendance at parenting classes, which indicated that Mother is registered for and attending the classes. Mother’s counsel contended that the information in the report regarding Mother not beginning parenting classes was incorrect. In addition, Mother’s counsel advised that he had submitted a letter from a Dr. Meredith Johnston of “Health Care for the Homeless” documenting that Mother was engaged in therapy and psychiatry and that she is compliant with appointments and medication. The magistrate accepted Mother’s counsel’s exhibits into evidence as Mother’s Exhibits 1 and 2. - 15 -  K.B.’s counsel advised the magistrate that he was “in agreement with the recommendations of the Department to continue [K.B.’s] commitment.” With respect to the permanency plan, K.B.’s counsel stated: I’ll just say that I understand the objections indicated by [Mother’s counsel] and his client. I know we do still have a permanency plan set for June 16th at 9 a.m. in this matter. So, it is a bit early to recommend a permanency plan change. K.B.’s counsel stated that he was “a little bit biased” because he had the “past experience with representing [K.B.’s] sibling in th[e] matter that led to adoption[.]” K.B.’s counsel pointed out that Mother’s reenrollment in Project Chesapeake had occurred “just this week” and that after the adjudication Mother had “4 or 5-months” “to show some consistency in th[e] program.” K.B.’s counsel stated: “So, that all being said, I’m not objecting to the addition of the adoption as the permanency plan at this point. I know it is a little bit early, and I do want [Mother] to have every opportunity to continue re- engagement.” K.B.’s counsel stated that because “reunification is still on the table at this point,” he did not think that the change in the permanency plan “prejudice[d Mother] too much, because she does have the opportunity, of course, to still work on reunification[.]” The magistrate adopted the Department’s recommendation, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that K.B.’s “permanency plan should be reunification with parents concurrent with placement with a relative for adoption, adoption by a non-relative.” - 16 -  On January 20, 2025, Mother filed timely exceptions to the magistrate’s recommendation and requested a de novo hearing.6 3. Exceptions to Initial Review Hearing: Decision of the Juvenile Court On March 10, 2025, the juvenile court conducted a de novo hearing on the exceptions. There is no indication in the record that the Department provided an updated report. At the hearing, counsel for the Department argued that, while “atypical,” it was appropriate for the permanency plan to be changed at the initial review hearing because of the Department’s history with Mother and her failure to meaningfully engage in services until recently. K.B.’s counsel adopted the Department’s arguments and, like the Department’s counsel, expressed concern about Mother’s history. Mother’s counsel rebutted the arguments by detailing Mother’s progress since the initial review hearing— contending that, since the hearing, Mother had consistently participated in an anger management program, parenting classes, mental health treatment, and visitation with K.B., while also continuing to take her medication. Mother’s counsel argued that the magistrate erred by changing the permanency plan before the permanency planning hearing, that a concurrent plan of reunification and adoption is impermissible because the plans are diametrically opposed, and that, even if concurrent plans are permitted, the plan for reunification in this case should not be changed given Mother’s progress. 6 CJ § 3-807(c)(2) provides that the party who files exceptions to a magistrate’s recommendations may elect a hearing de novo or a hearing on the record before the court unless the party is the State in a proceeding involving juvenile delinquency. - 17 -  After argument by the parties, the juvenile court asked whether “the Statute” allowed a permanency plan to be changed at a review hearing. The court heard from the parties and announced that it would take a recess to “review the statute and the cases[.]” Upon return, the juvenile court ruled that because a permanency plan of reunification had been determined at the disposition hearing, there was already a permanency plan in place and the plan could be changed at the initial review hearing. The court reasoned that, based on the language of the adjudication/disposition order, the parties were on notice that the permanency plan of reunification could be changed after the adjudication/disposition hearing. To illustrate the point, the court read aloud language from the last page of the adjudication/disposition order, which, like the rest of the order, contains preprinted/form language. The court stated: There was originally an adjudication disposition order that was entered on September 18, 2024, by a judge of this Court, and it indicates and orders in bold, “The Court finds giving notice to all parties that the permanency plan of reunification, which the Court finds was the permanency plan in place at the end of the adjudication and disposition held before a judge of this Court, may be changed to another permanency plan which may include the filing of a petition for termination of parental rights if --” and the Court finds in the plain reading of that, where it says, “It may be changed to another permanency plan, but it also may include the filing of a petition for termination of parental rights if the parents have not made significant progress to remedy the circumstances that caused the need for removal as specific in this Court order, or two, are unwilling or unable to give the child proper care and attention within a reasonable period of time, or three, the child has been out-of-home placement for 15 out of the last 22 months.” - 18 -  The court indicated that it had reviewed the Department’s January 7, 2025 report and summarized information from the report, including that the Department recommended that the permanency plan change from reunification to a concurrent plan with adoption by a non-relative and relative. The court stated that it had reviewed CJ § 3-816.2 and that the statute provided the following guidance: “There must be a review hearing to review the status of each child under jurisdiction within 6 months after the filing of the first petition, and at the review hearing the Court shall evaluate the safety of the child, determining the continuing necessity for an appropriateness of out-of-home placement, determine the appropriateness of an extent of compliance with the case plan for the child, determine the extent of progress that has been made towards alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating the Court’s jurisdiction, and project a reasonable date by which the child may be returned to and safely maintained in the home, replace for adoption under a legal guardianship.” After reading aloud language from CJ § 3-816.2, the court stated that “subsection C of the statute” provides that, “[i]f the permanency plan for the child has been determined under the subtitle, a review hearing conducted by the Court under section of the subtitle shall satisfy the requirements of the section.” Applying the guidance that it had obtained from CJ § 3-816.2, the court stated that it had considered the safety of the child and found that “currently the child is safe in the current placement.” Addressing what it identified as the “second consideration[,]” the court “acknowledge[d] and commend[ed] the efforts Mother has made since predominately the last review hearing[,]”7 but found that it was “still necessary and appropriate to have the child in out-of-home placement.” Next, the 7 The court was apparently referring to the initial review hearing that occurred before the magistrate, as there had been no prior review hearing. - 19 - court addressed what it labeled as number “[t]hree” and ruled as f