## Facts

- An infant, Christopher Robyn Sanders, was hospitalized with multiple fractures and other injuries consistent with battered-child syndrome.
- The Montgomery County Department of Social Services (MCDSS) filed a juvenile petition alleging Christopher was a child in need of assistance (CINA).
- The juvenile court awarded temporary custody to MCDSS, and Christopher was placed in foster care.
- Proceedings indicated the child’s father, not the mother (Rebecca Sanders), inflicted the abuse.
- After removal, Rebecca separated from the father, pursued counseling, took child-development instruction, worked in childcare, secured appropriate housing, arranged childcare, and identified a pediatrician experienced with abused children.
- Rebecca petitioned to modify the custody order and sought Christopher’s return.
- MCDSS and aligned parties opposed reunification, arguing the foster parents had become Christopher’s “psychological parents” and that removal would cause serious emotional harm.
- The juvenile court rejected treating the psychological-parent theory as determinative, applied a totality-of-the-circumstances best-interests analysis, and returned custody to Rebecca.
- MCDSS, the father, and the foster parents appealed; the appellate court stayed the reunification order pending appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the “psychological parent” concept should be adopted as an exclusive or paramount custody determinant in a CINA case when the natural parent is not shown to be unfit.
2. Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by returning custody to the child’s biological mother rather than maintaining foster placement based on asserted psychological and material advantages.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the juvenile court’s order returning custody to the biological mother.
- The court declined to adopt the psychological-parent theory as an exclusive or controlling rule in custody determinations.
- The court held that, considering the totality of the circumstances and the preference for a fit natural parent absent unfitness or exceptional circumstances, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Custody determinations turn on the child’s best interests evaluated under the totality of the circumstances.
- Maryland recognizes a strong preference for custody with a fit natural parent; third-party custody generally requires parental unfitness or exceptional circumstances showing parental custody would be detrimental to the child.
- The psychological-parent concept may be considered as a fact bearing on the child’s welfare, but it is not a controlling presumption that overrides the natural-parent preference.
- Appellate review of custody decisions is deferential; reversal requires a showing that the trial court was plainly wrong or abused its discretion.

## Conclusion

The court upheld reunification with the child’s biological mother after finding no unfitness or exceptional circumstances warranting continued foster placement, and it refused to transform the psychological-parent concept into a rule that would control custody outcomes in CINA cases.


Montgomery Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Sanders, 38 Md. App. 406, 381 A.2d 1154 (Ct. Spec. App. 1977)