211 A.3d 1116
D.C.2019Background
- Mother I.I. was involuntarily committed in July 2015 due to untreated schizophrenia; her five-year-old son A.I. was removed and adjudicated neglected in October 2015.
- The court ordered a reunification case plan focused on mental-health treatment (therapy and antipsychotic meds) and regular supervised visitation; I.I. attended only a few psychiatric visits, refused ongoing treatment, and denied having a mental illness.
- I.I. had an intermittent, often antagonistic relationship with CFSA staff, stopped attending many supervised visits, and filed unsuccessful civil suits against a social worker.
- CFSA petitioned to change the permanency goal from reunification to adoption; the magistrate held a four-day Ta.L. evidentiary hearing and found CFSA met its burden on the Ta.L. factors; an associate judge affirmed.
- The trial court found (1) the case plan was reasonable and tailored to the barrier (untreated mental illness), (2) CFSA made reasonable efforts (referrals, transportation, supervision, repeated outreach), and (3) I.I. failed to make adequate progress toward reunification.
Issues
| Issue | I.I.'s Argument | CFSA/Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the reunification case plan reasonable? | Plan was defective because I.I. did not participate or sign case plans. | Plan complied with statutory/regulatory requirements and addressed the primary barrier (mental illness); CFSA attempted to involve I.I. | Plan was reasonable; parent’s refusal to participate does not invalidate it. |
| Did CFSA expend "reasonable efforts" to reunify? | CFSA should have done more (e.g., remove the initial social worker sooner); poor worker relationship caused noncompliance. | CFSA made tailored referrals, provided transportation, supervisory outreach, and replaced staff where appropriate; I.I. repeatedly refused to engage. | CFSA’s efforts were reasonable; agency efforts judged by what it did, not by parent’s refusal. |
| Did I.I. make adequate progress toward reunification goals? | Lack of progress was caused by CFSA relationship issues; she argues progress was sufficient. | I.I. largely declined treatment and missed many visits; no evidence of mental-health improvement. | I.I. failed to make adequate progress, particularly on engaging in consistent mental-health treatment and visitation. |
| Was the change of permanency goal to adoption supported by evidence and legal standard? | Goal change was improper because one cannot rely on evidence from earlier proceedings or because CFSA’s actions caused noncompliance. | Ta.L. three-factor test satisfied by preponderance: reasonable plan, reasonable efforts, and parent’s failure to progress; best interests presumed when factors met. | Court affirmed change to adoption; magistrate’s factual findings not clearly erroneous and legal conclusions correct. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Ta.L., 149 A.3d 1060 (D.C. 2016) (established three-factor test for changing permanency goal from reunification to adoption)
- In re K.C., 200 A.3d 1216 (D.C. 2019) (discussed agency’s duty to explore alternatives and reasonable-efforts standard)
- In re J.M., 193 A.3d 773 (D.C. 2018) (parent’s refusal to sign or participate does not render a case plan unreasonable)
- In re J.O., 176 A.3d 144 (D.C. 2018) (deference to trial court factual findings; review standards)
- In re H.C., 187 A.3d 1254 (D.C. 2018) (abuse-of-discretion standard for permanency goal changes)
- In re M.V.H., 143 A.3d 94 (D.C. 2016) (courts may consider all circumstances of removal when evaluating permanency changes)