Opinion ID: 1298495
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Adjudication of Neglect

Text: An adjudicatory hearing was held on May 24, 2000, and testimony was taken. Mr. Propst testified concerning the children's medical conditions, school attendance, and missed medical appointments. The lower court asked Mr. Propst why the petition had been filed at this time [i]f this has been going on in some way, shape or form involving this whole family for about a year or so.... In response, Mr. Propst raised the issue of lice and nits, an issue which does not appear in the petition or amended petition, and explained as follows: Mainly, the absences of the children from school and the fact that they were coming to school every day with lice, the teachers were sending them home. [8] The lower court then suggested as follows: Well, you've been in and out of the home, as well as the others, for, you know, at least twenty times and so forth for a year, did anyone give her any direction or supervision or any help in, you know, getting rid of the mites.... [D]id the Department or anyone else involved do something to find her a better place or a cleaner place or to bring someone in if she was unable to do it.... Mr. Propst responded: No, sir, we didn't bring anybody in to do that. I was informed that they had a vacuum cleaner, and they could've vacuumed. During that adjudicatory hearing, the Appellant testified that she had extended running water from the outside into the home. She explained that when Mr. Propst told her to get the water fixed, she was able to obtain running water in the home by paying a neighbor $146.00 to repair the mobile home's broken water pipes after the landlord, residing in Virginia, failed to respond to the Appellant's request for running water and some type of heat other than the coal furnace in the home. She also testified about her bond with the children, as follows: Just that I love my children. They are my life. Nobody can live without air, and I can't live without them. They're the reason I go on. They're the reason I struggle. Sure, I had to pack that water, and it was hard on me, but I didn't make it harder for them. I still kept them clean and stuff. I tried. When the lower court asked why she had not demanded further assistance with running water from the DHHR, the Appellant responded: It would be kind of hard to demand that the Department ... do something for me when I mean, they say I I miss appointments and things.... When questioned regarding the family income, the Appellant explained that she received $460.00 per month on behalf of David, based upon his seizure disability, and that she received $312.00 per month in benefits and $148.00 per month in food stamps. Mr. F. also allegedly paid the Appellant $50.00 in support monthly. The record does not disclose how much, if any, of that income ended upon the entry of the temporary relief order on March 9, 2000, transferring custody to persons other than the Appellant. Having conducted this adjudicatory hearing on May 24, 2000, the lower court entered the resulting order on June 26, 2000, [9] finding that the Appellant had neglected the children. Specifically, the lower court found as follows: [The Appellant] failed to provide a safe home for the children, who lived with her in two rooms of a mobile home with dangerous electrical wiring and without hot or cold running water inside the home. She further failed to send the children to school on a regular basis, resulting in her prosecution for truancy, and she failed to seek readily available medical treatment for one of the children even though he had suffered a serious injury to his face that should have received immediate, emergency medical care. With specific regard to the infant Benny, the court found as follows: The Court additionally finds that ... [the Appellant] seriously neglected the basic needs of infant respondent Benny ... [J.] by failing to provide adequate nourishment and emotional support, resulting in the infant being diagnosed by a pediatrician with failure to thrive and anemia. Said child had gained only a few ounces in the two months since his birth on December 27, 1999.... The lower court ordered that the parents continue to have reasonable visitation, contact and communication with the infants under the Department's supervision, but there shall be no forced visitation. The record is silent regarding the degree to which the visitation privileges granted by the lower court were exercised by the Appellant after the adjudicatory hearing.