193 A.3d 773
D.C.2018Background
- Children J.M. and D.M. were removed in Aug. 2015 after living in hazardous conditions and medical evidence of injuries; children adjudicated neglected and committed to CFSA custody.
- Magistrate initially set concurrent permanency goals of reunification and adoption; case plan required mental-health evaluation, therapy, parenting classes, housing, and consistent visitation.
- Mother has documented serious mental-health history (bipolar disorder, schizophrenia) and sporadic engagement with services; she missed multiple visits and refused recommended individual therapy and releases to providers.
- On Oct. 12, 2016 the court changed the permanency goal to adoption only, citing the Mother’s failure to engage with services and inconsistent visitation.
- Mother requested and received a Ta.L. evidentiary hearing limited to the record up to Oct. 12, 2016; after two-day hearing the magistrate and a reviewing associate judge affirmed the adoption-only goal.
- Mother appealed, arguing the District failed to prove by a preponderance that (1) it provided a reasonable reunification plan, (2) it made reasonable efforts, (3) the Mother failed to make adequate progress, and (4) kinship options were not adequately explored.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ta.L. entitles Mother to review of a pre-Ta.L. goal change and immediate appeal | Ta.L. hearing authorized; review of Oct. 2016 change appropriate | District/GAL argued small scope or no rehearing for prior goal change | Court: Ta.L. applies; post‑Ta.L. review and immediate appeal permitted (Sa.C. precedent applied) |
| Whether CFSA provided a reasonable, appropriate reunification plan | Mother: plan was improper because she didn’t sign and update lacked agency-assigned actions | CFSA: plan mirrored court orders and social workers had referral/scheduling duties | Court: Plan was reasonable and consistent with court directives |
| Whether CFSA expended reasonable efforts to achieve reunification | Mother: agency failed to obtain MBI documentation and merely gave referral lists | CFSA: repeatedly assisted (referrals to familiar provider MBI, accompanied to evaluation, housing assistance, scheduling, outreach) | Court: CFSA expended reasonable efforts; Mother’s refusal to cooperate relevant |
| Whether Mother made adequate progress on the case plan | Mother: completed some steps and showed positive visits; pregnancy and other explanations justify missed visits | CFSA: Mother largely did not engage in individual therapy, missed visits July–Sept 2016, failed to provide documentation | Court: Finding that Mother failed to make adequate progress is supported by record |
| Whether kinship placements were adequately explored | Mother: agency didn’t sufficiently identify relatives/options | CFSA: worked with maternal aunt, made housing referrals; aunt unable to secure larger housing before goal change; later relatives were assessed | Court: Agency adequately explored kinship; efforts sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Ta.L., 149 A.3d 1060 (D.C. 2016) (establishes standards and right to evidentiary hearing and appeal when permanency goal changes to adoption)
- In re Sa.C., 178 A.3d 460 (D.C. 2018) (applies Ta.L. retroactively and permits trial court to follow Ta.L. for pre‑Ta.L. goal changes)
- In re J.O., 176 A.3d 144 (D.C. 2018) (reviewing court looks to factfinder’s findings when reviewing permanency decisions)
- In re C.L.O., 41 A.3d 502 (D.C. 2012) (standard for accepting trial-court factual findings on review)
- In re P.D.J.K., 182 A.3d 1234 (D.C. 2018) (courts may take judicial notice of factual findings from prior related proceedings)