Opinion ID: 4415700
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Government’s Reunification Plan

Text: I.I. first argues that the reunification plan “was not appropriate or reasonable” because she did not participate in the case planning process and did not sign the case plans. The magistrate judge credited social worker Ms. DeAnna, who testified that she made numerous “efforts . . . to engage with mom” in case planning. The record reveals that the relevant criteria required by 45 C.F.R. § 1356.21(g), 42 U.S.C. § 675, D.C. Code § 4-1301.02(3), the DC ASFA, and CFSA’s internal policy manual, were included in the reunification plan, and this further supports the magistrate judge’s finding that the case plan was appropriate given the basis for A.I.’s removal. The case plan fulfilled DC ASFA’s requirement that the case plan be “a written” “plan for assuring that the child receives safe and proper care and that services are available to the parents, child, and foster parents in order to improve conditions in the parents’ home.” D.C. Code § 4-1301.02(3)(B). I.I.’s case plan is an extensive document that details, among other things, a “problem statement,” a “vision of success,” and “action components” for each domain in the case and for each 23 participant in the case as well. For example, in the first case plan developed shortly after A.I.’s removal, under the domain of “Mental Health and Coping Skills,” the “problem statement” stated that I.I.’s untreated mental health condition resulted in her hospitalization and A.I.’s removal from her care. The “vision of success” was that I.I. “will receive treatment for her mental health condition and show insight into the problems that” led to A.I.’s removal. Finally, the “action components” were that I.I. will meet with Family Matters for an intake assessment and will comply with treatment recommended by Family Matters psychiatrists, which may include therapy and medication. I.I.’s primary problem, as reflected by all of the case plans, was her untreated mental illness. I.I.’s argument that she never participated in planning and did not sign the case plans is unpersuasive. CFSA tried to engage I.I. in case planning on numerous occasions, but I.I. refused to participate. In fact, I.I. admitted she was aware that Ms. DeAnna and CFSA attempted to reach out to her on numerous occasions to engage in reunification planning, but that she refused to work with, or even speak to Ms. DeAnna, Ms. Hawkins, and the rest of the CFSA team assigned to work on the matter, and did not attend any case planning meetings. CFSA expended efforts to call, meet with, and reach out to I.I. Ms. DeAnna repeatedly encouraged I.I. to participate in therapy with Dr. Panbehi and attend visitation, and she facilitated I.I.’s 24 access to these opportunities by providing referrals, transportation, follow-up, and outreach. I.I. cannot defeat a permanency goal change by refusing to work with CFSA. I.I.’s refusal to participate does not render the case plan defective. It is undisputed that I.I. was informed of the case-plan contents and “had the opportunity to raise her concerns [regarding case planning or the reunification goals] in court” during the Disposition Hearing on October 29, 2015, and Reviews of the Disposition Hearings on February 5, 2016, and on June 13, 2016, but failed to do so.14 In J.M., we held that because “the case plan mirrored what the magistrate judge had ordered” in court and in the disposition hearing orders, the mother was notified of the case plan’s requirements for reunification. 193 A.3d at 782. We specifically held that the requirements of the case plan did not need the mother’s signature to be effective and therefore the mother’s refusal to engage with CFSA, despite its efforts to involve her 14 Pursuant to D.C. Code § 16-2323(a)(1) (2012 Repl.), when a child has been adjudicated neglected and remains in an out-of-home placement, a review hearing must be held every six months until a permanency hearing is held. See In re Ta.L., 149 A.3d at 1077. At review hearings, the court assesses and may amend the reunification plan to determine whether the child is safe and whether appropriate steps are being taken to address the child’s needs and ameliorate the issues that led to the child being brought into the system. Id. The court conducted two review hearings on February 5 and June 13, 2016, both of which I.I. attended. After each hearing, the court issued an order determining that CFSA continued to make reasonable efforts toward the goal of reunification but that I.I. was not complying with the court’s direction through the case plan. 25 in case planning, would not prevent CFSA from proceeding with case planning without the mother. Id. The trial court here developed a case plan to address the primary barrier to I.I.’s reunification with A.I.—I.I.’s untreated mental illness. The trial court and CFSA repeatedly informed I.I. of her reunification goals throughout the duration of the case—to participate in mental health treatment and to consistently visit A.I. I.I. was also provided with a copy of the court’s Disposition Hearing Order, which contained I.I.’s reunification goals prefaced with the following: “To achieve reunification, mother MUST do the following.” See supra note 4. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the case plans were appropriate because they identified the barriers to reunification, set forth specific goals to address such barriers, and provided appropriate referrals for mental health treatment. I.I.’s refusal to engage with CFSA or participate in case planning does not render the case plan ineffective.