Opinion ID: 2011173
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Trial Judge's Ultimate Findings.

Text: In addition to her evidentiary findings, the trial judge made ultimate findings applying the statutory criteria for termination of parental rights, see D.C.Code § 16-2353 (1989 & Supp.1994), and especially with respect to M.D., Sr.'s fitness as a parent. Addressing the father's mental health history, the judge concluded that he has a history of antisocial behavior and lots of threats. In the main, he doesn't carry out his threats. He provokes people. He acts belligerently ... [A]ll the times he has felt homicidal towards sisters and family members, who don't help him, except at an extreme cost. I'll help you only if you let me adopt your child. He even explains the molestation [charge], one which he denies, but claims that he pleaded guilty to it in order to avoid a longer sentence after trial. After discussing the father's at least average intelligence, his reasonable social skills, and his defeatist attitude that might respond to help in terms of increasing his motivation, the judge concluded that  there is no, repeat, no significant disorder of his personality.  (Emphasis added). Throughout her findings, the judge expressed irritation that various District of Columbia agencies had failed to provide the father (and, in some instances, the mother) with services to which the judge believed that they were entitled. According to the judge, that is precisely the crux of the problem in this case. No services were provided. No one bothered to assist mother, whose needs were enormous, or father, whose needs could easily have been met. [9] She concluded that the father has the potential to react in a socially acceptable manner, but that he needs therapeutic support, such as a therapist or perhaps the homebuilders intensive in-home support program, perhaps vocational rehab, and definitely homemaker childcare services. But even without such services, this court concludes that Mr. D. is mentally and emotionally well, notwithstanding his history. Summarizing her decision, the judge held that the guardian ad litem has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the child's best interest for the court to terminate the father/child relationship. She further concluded that M.D., Sr. was a fit father and that the child is entitled to be raised by his fit father, who has not abandoned him, and who has grasped his opportunity to be a parent. To ... the extent to which he is estranged from his child, [this] is at least, in part, attributable to the failure of ... several agencies to even try to meet his needs so that he could meet his child's needs. The agencies who've been involved in the care of M., Jr., have failed [to help] the child reunify with the father. Instead they have tested the father as he struggled against the odds. Under the circumstances, then, the petition to adopt is denied. And the motion to terminate parental rights is likewise denied. These appeals followed. [10]