Opinion ID: 2011438
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Court's Authority to Issue the Order.

Text: The GAL argues that the order conditionally releasing S.C.M. to the mother, while the J.'s retained legal custody, exceeded the judge's authority. We disagree. The applicable statute vests the trial court with considerable latitude in crafting a disposition designed to reunite the family while safe-guarding the well-being of the child. See D.C.Code §§ 16-2323(d), -2320(a) (1989). Section 16-2323(d) provides: If the [Family] Division finds that the commitment of the child to a department, agency, institution or person other than the parent is no longer necessary to safeguard the welfare of the child, the Division may order: (1) the child returned to the home and the provision of supervision or other services; or (2) any other disposition authorized by section 16-2320(a). (Emphasis added). Section 16-2320(a), in turn, provides the court with six different options, one of which reads as follows: The Division may make such other disposition as is not prohibited by law and as the Division deems to be in the best interests of the child.... D.C.Code § 16-2320(a)(5). In this case, the judge proceeded cautiously. She transferred physical but not legal custody of S.C.M. to the mother, so that, as she explained at the hearing, we can make sure things are going all right before we take the more formal legal step of placing your daughter back with you in protective supervision. The judge did not exceed her authority.