the mother’s explanation for how the hole was created, indicating that she had believed some other unstated version of events to be more plausible. However, DHR did not provide the juvenile court with evidence regarding that alternative version of events or supply the juvenile court with any basis for inferring that the unstated information necessarily indicated that the mother had created the hole while in the throes of some bizarre, erratic, or impulsive behavior due to a mental-health problem. Without such evidence, any conclusions the juvenile court may have reached as to what had happened and how those events pointed to the mother’s having a mental-health problem could be based only on speculation and conjecture. See In re Jertrude O., 56 Md.App. 83, 466 A.2d 885 (1983) (<HOLDING>). In the adjudicatory hearing, DHR did not
holding that juvenile court that determined child was not dependent had no jurisdiction to thereafter determine custody of child holding that the requisites for in loco parentis status are the actual care and custody of a child by a nonparent who assumes parental duties because the parent  generally due to his or her absence  is unable or unwilling to care for the child holding that a superior court can adjudicate a child as a child in need of aid based on the acts of just one parent holding that juvenile court cannot remove child from home and continue shelter care based upon speculative possibility that child had been or would be abused or harmed by parent holding that evidence was sufficient that child was removed under chapter 262 for abuse or neglect when record contained evidence that parent made no effort to contact child left at shelter and trial court made findings of immediate danger to childs physical health or safety in emergency temporary order