Opinion ID: 1933198
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The judge's authority in the neglect proceeding.

Text: On November 4, 1996, the trial judge held a review in the 1993 neglect proceeding and combined it with the hearing in the divorce case on the father's motion for modification of custody. Although the trial judge grounded her 1998 award of custody to the grandmother primarily on what she perceived to be her authority in a divorce proceeding, she also stated in her order that the domestic relations component of this consolidated case is thoroughly interlaced with the neglect component and neglect legal criteria. The neglect proceeding with which the divorce case was consolidated was initiated by the Corporation Counsel in 1993 against the father. The mother was not alleged to have neglected either of her children. [5] In fact, the mother was the complaining witness, and the proceeding was instituted as a result of her allegations against the father. Although the jacket remained open in connection with the neglect case  one in which the mother was a successful complainant, and not the party accused of neglect  this circumstance provides no legal or logical support for an order depriving the mother of custody of her children. The protections of the child neglect statute discussed in Part II C, supra, which were afforded to the father in the proceeding instituted by the Corporation Counsel against him, were not made available to the mother. Indeed, the mother was deprived of custody of both children even though the first indispensable event in a neglect proceeding  an allegation by the Corporation Counsel that a parent has neglected a child or children  has never occurred with respect to the mother. Because the neglect case involved only the conduct of the father, the mother has never had the benefit of any of the safeguards that follow the institution of such a proceeding. Finally, the judge's order deprived the mother of the custody of her son, M.C.S., Jr., even though neither parent was ever alleged to have neglected the boy, and even though no neglect proceeding was ever brought with respect to him. We agree with the statement in the mother's brief that [w]hile a parent's abusive conduct towards one child may justify removal of custody of both the child and his or her siblings ( see In re S.G., 581 A.2d 771, 780 (D.C.1990)), this does not obviate the need to open a neglect proceeding on all of the children sought to be removed. Id. at 773 (the government also filed separate neglect petitions with regard to S.G.'s younger half-siblings). Our conclusion that the judge lacked the authority to remove either child from the mother's custody therefore applies with even more force to M.C.S., Jr.