11 A.3d 273
D.C.2011Background
- K.J. is a female adolescent whose mother, R.J., is incarcerated; CFSA took custody after a 30-day investigation.
- K.J. initially lived with her grandmother, B.J., who acted in loco parentis and provided care and supervision.
- K.J. left her grandmother’s home after being grounded; she went to a godmother’s house and then CFSA custody.
- CFSA investigated and attempted to contact the grandmother and other relatives but the grandmother did not respond.
- The trial court found the grandmother neglected K.J. under 16-2301(9)(A)(ii) but this was reversed; the mother was found to have neglected K.J. under 16-2301(9)(A)(iv); statements by K.J. were challenged as hearsay but rejected upon review.
- The court affirmed the mother’s neglect finding but reversed the grandmother’s neglect finding; it did not need to address 16-2301(9)(A)(iii) because (iv) sufficed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neglect under 16-2301(9)(A)(ii) by in loco parentis | R.J. and B.J. argue insufficient evidence | State contends there was sufficient evidence of in loco parentis and failure of care | Grandmother’s neglect reversed; not enough evidence of ‘without’ required care under (ii) |
| Neglect under 16-2301(9)(A)(iv) by caregiver failure during incarceration | Mother argues adequate care arrangements were made; CFSA should bear responsibility | Mother failed to arrange capable care after incarceration | Affirmed: sufficient evidence mother failed to arrange care after leaving grandmother’s home |
| Admission of K.J.’s statements as non-hearsay admissions | Statements should be admissible against the party; K.J. party opponent | Statements not against K.J.’s interest; not admissible | No reversible error; exclusion proper; even if admitted, error would be insignificant |
| Application of 16-2301(9)(A)(iii) incarceration-based neglect | Incarceration nexus could support neglect | Not necessary since (iv) already supported neglect | Addressed as dicta; not essential because (iv) sufficed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.C., 582 A.2d 1196 (D.C.1990) (in loco parentis can support neglect when child is without requisite care)
- Fuller v. Fuller, 247 A.2d 767 (D.C.1968) (in loco parentis is temporary and can be terminated; termination must be evaluated for neglect)
- In re S.G., 581 A.2d 771 (D.C.1990) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in neglect cases)
- In re Ty.B., 878 A.2d 1255 (D.C.2005) (hearsay admissions; de novo review of admissibility; potential harmless error)
- In re American V., 833 A.2d 493 (D.C.2003) (adjudication review: not plainly wrong if supported by evidence)
- In re T.T.C., 855 A.2d 1117 (D.C.2004) (incarceration nexus to neglect)