In re K.M., 75 A.3d 224

CFSA received hotline about L.M.'s mental health; home is clean, well-supplied, and seemingly safe for K.M.
A second hotline led to immediate removal of K.M. from L.M.'s custody after a school interview; K.M. appeared fearful of home; L.M. expressed suspicion toward CFSA staff.
Two experts, Dr. Theut (psychiatry) and Dr. King (psychology), provisionally diagnosed L.M. with delusional disorder persecutory type and discussed potential impacts on parenting.
L.M.'s witnesses described a loving, protective relationship; no expert testimony showed actual harm to K.M. at that time; some social-work observations noted K.M.'s behavioral issues after removal.
Magistrate found K.M. neglected by preponderance, citing risk from L.M.'s illness; reviewing judge affirmed; majority reverses for insufficient evidence linking illness to actual or substantial risk of harm.
During proceedings, guardianship over K.M. was later awarded to his maternal grandmother, with ongoing consideration of future proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient evidence of neglect under DC Code § 16-2301(9)(A) (ii)-(iii)?	District: L.M.'s delusional disorder endangered K.M.'s emotional health.	L.M.'s illness could impair parenting and threaten child’s health; evidence showed risk of harm.	Insufficient evidence to prove neglect.
Can future risk of harm support a neglect finding without actual harm?	District: risk from untreated disorder justifies neglect finding.	Neglect requires concrete harm or substantial risk of harm supported by evidence.	Risk alone was not substantial enough to sustain neglect.
Did the experts' testimony establish a nexus between mother's mental incapacity and improper parental care?	District: delusional disorder impaired parenting and could lead to neglect.	Experts offered speculative, conditional opinions not linked to K.M. specifically.	No adequate nexus proven; testimony insufficient to prove neglect.
Should the case be remanded for additional evidence or proceedings?	Remand could allow admission of extra-record material supporting neglect.	Remand unnecessary; record insufficient to sustain neglect; alternative actions possible.	Court reversed the neglect finding; remand not required in the majority's view.

In re E.H., 718 A.2d 159 (D.C.1998) (requires proof of actual or substantial risk of harm, not mere possibility)
In re N.P., 882 A.2d 241 (D.C.2005) (nexus between mental incapacity and inability to provide proper care)
In re A.H., 842 A.2d 674 (D.C.2004) (substantial risk of serious harm necessary for neglect finding; evidence must be concrete)
In re L.H., 925 A.2d 579 (D.C.2007) (reversal where inference of incapacity rested on speculative grounds)
In re G.H., 797 A.2d 679 (D.C.2002) (weighs substantial interests and limits on state intervention in family life)
In re P.B., 54 A.3d 660 (D.C.2012) (reminds that liberal construction of neglect statute must be grounded in proven harm)