In re D.S.
2012 D.C. App. LEXIS 481
D.C.2012Background
- Unwed biological father challenge to removal and CFSA custody of six children after mother’s abuse led to neglect findings.
- CFSA removed children and mother stipulated neglect; CFSA sought disposition up to two years with goal of reunification.
- Parental presumption favors custody with fit parent; due process requires clear evidence to overcome presumption.
- Dispositions occurred despite evidence of the father’s involvement and perceived parental fitness; issues included housing, health, and opportunity interest.
- Trial court and associate judge failed to explicitly apply the parental presumption and to make clear findings of unfitness or detriment to best interests; case remanded for reassessment under correct standards.
- Court emphasized the need for explicit recognition of the presumption and reliance on substantial evidence supporting any rebuttal of the presumption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the disposition honored the parental presumption. | M. challenged lack of presumption application. | CFSA/GA L argued information supported removal. | Reversed; remanded to apply parental presumption with clear-and-convincing standard. |
| Whether the initial shelter care hearing violated due process. | Father asserts insufficient notice and opportunity to respond. | Court acted within reasonable efforts framework. | Remand acknowledged but not reached on due process beyond disposition. |
| Whether reasonable efforts requirement was satisfied. | Government failed to adequately explore placement with father. | Efforts deemed reasonable given circumstances. | Remanded for reconsideration under proper standards. |
| Whether evidence supported keeping children away from father due to housing/health concerns. | Father was involved; evidence insufficient to deem unfit. | Housing/health could support concern for best interests. | Remand for explicit findings; overbroad reliance on housing/health was improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.G., 581 A.2d 771 (D.C.1990) (parens patriae best interests; parental presumption applies to disposition)
- In re J.F., 615 A.2d 594 (D.C.1992) (presumption for fit parent; requires clear and convincing evidence to rebut)
- In re L.J.T., 608 A.2d 1213 (D.C.1992) (fitness of noncustodial parent; explicit home study considerations)
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1923) (constitutional protections for parental rights)