214 A.3d 1023
D.C.2019Background
- Z.W., born 2015, was removed from parents' care in Oct 2016 after being found alone; mother (M.G.) had a stay-away order; father (M.W.) received supervised-care plan and services referrals.
- CFSA placed Z.W. with relatives at various times; three social workers worked the case between Oct 2016 and Dec 2017; multiple disposition and review hearings occurred in 2017.
- Court-ordered services for M.W. included supervised visitation, parenting class, DV assessment and completion of Man 2 Man DV program, drug spot-testing and APRA assessment/treatment, and participation in child’s speech therapy.
- Government filed notice Aug 31, 2017 seeking change of permanency goal from reunification to adoption; Magistrate Judge Breslow held a Ta.L. evidentiary permanency hearing Dec 4, 2017 and changed the goal to adoption; Associate Judge Wellner affirmed on review; M.W. appealed.
- Magistrate judge credited CFSA social workers, discredited M.W.’s testimony (he appeared impaired and tested positive for cocaine and marijuana at the hearing), and found all four Ta.L. factors satisfied by a preponderance of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | M.W.'s Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Reasonable reunification plan (Ta.L. factor 1) | CFSA failed to provide a formal, written case plan signed by M.W.; therefore plan was not "reasonable" | Agency repeatedly attempted case-planning; magistrate orders and CFSA recommendations functioned as a plan; lack of formal plan was largely due to M.W.’s refusal to engage | Court: Plan was reasonable; court orders and social-worker testimony suffice; no prejudice shown to M.W. (affirmed) |
| 2. Reasonable efforts (Ta.L. factor 2) | CFSA did not sufficiently facilitate drug testing/treatment or provide alternative DV programming | Social workers credibly testified to extensive outreach, referrals, reminders, and court-ordered services; Man 2 Man was the available DV program | Court: CFSA made reasonable efforts; parent’s noncompliance, not agency inaction, explained shortcomings (affirmed) |
| 3. Adequate progress by parent (Ta.L. factor 3) | M.W. completed parenting class, DV and APRA assessments, had housing/employment and some visitation; that was enough (argues a low "floor") | M.W. failed to complete Man 2 Man, was inconsistent in visitation and speech-therapy participation, had repeated positive drug tests and was impaired at hearing | Court: M.W. failed to make adequate progress; shortcomings (drug use, inconsistent visits, unfinished DV program) support goal change (affirmed) |
| 4. Exploration of alternatives to TPR (Ta.L. factor 4) / guardianship | CFSA did not sufficiently pursue kinship or guardianship options after kinship disruption | CFSA explored kinship placements (including paternal aunt and relatives who ultimately fostered); guardianship is available only if adoption is inappropriate | Court: CFSA adequately explored alternatives; guardianship was not required and was not shown to be preferable (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Ta.L., 149 A.3d 1060 (D.C. 2016) (establishes four Ta.L. criteria and requirement of a more formal evidence-based permanency hearing)
- In re A.I., 211 A.3d 1116 (D.C. 2019) (agency must prepare a written case plan meeting statutory/regulatory requirements)
- In re J.M., 193 A.3d 773 (D.C. 2018) (parent’s refusal to participate in case planning undermines challenge to agency efforts)
- In re K.C., 200 A.3d 1216 (D.C. 2019) (framework for reviewing permanency goal changes under Ta.L.; examines adequate progress and reasonable efforts)
- In re D.B., 947 A.2d 443 (D.C. 2008) (hearsay admissible in disposition/permanency hearings; must be material and parents must have opportunity to rebut)