Opinion ID: 2057155
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Trial Court Retained Jurisdiction Over Appellant for the Adoption Proceeding

Text: Appellant contends that even if the Superior Court had jurisdiction over her in the neglect matter, it had to reacquire jurisdiction for the adoption matter. We disagree. Once the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a parent in a neglect matter, it retains jurisdiction until the child is permanently placed, whether reunified with the parent, or placed with a relative or adopted. See D.C.Code § 16-2320(a) (2001); cf. In re K.M.T., 795 A.2d 688, 690 (D.C.2002) (noting in the context of neglect proceedings that finality has generally been held to mean either a restoration of physical custody, a termination of parental rights, or an adoption). If a child is found to be neglected, the Division exercising juvenile jurisdiction shall also have jurisdiction over [the birth mother] to secure the [mother's] full cooperation and assistance in the entire rehabilitative process and may order [among several] dispositions which will be in the best interest of the child. D.C.Code § 16-2320(a) (emphasis added). These alternatives include the Division's power to [t]erminate the parent and child relationship for the purpose of seeking an adoptive placement for the child pursuant to subchapter III of this chapter. D.C.Code § 16-2320(a)(6). Here, the trial court adjudicated De.H. as neglected on May 1, 2001. In doing so, it exercised its jurisdiction over appellant pursuant to D.C.Code § 16-2320(a) and thus retained jurisdiction over [appellant] to secure [her] full cooperation and assistance for the entire rehabilitative process. [3] The neglect statute expressly states that [t]he Division [exercising juvenile jurisdiction] 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) (emphasis added). The best interests of the child determination expressly includes the option to [t]erminate the parent and child relationship for the purpose of seeking an adoptive placement for the child. ... D.C.Code § 16-2320(a)(6). The trial court's retention of personal jurisdiction over parents for the entirety of the rehabilitative process is consistent with [t]he neglect statute[, which] vests [the trial court] with broad authority to protect the safety and welfare of neglected children. In re T.W., 732 A.2d 254, 258-59 (D.C.1999) (citing D.C.Code § 16-2320(a)). Furthermore, we have noted that retaining jurisdiction for the entire rehabilitative process is justified for a variety of reasons, including to protect the child's best interests. Cf. In re O.A., 548 A.2d 499, 501 (D.C.1988) (explaining that if a court were to lose its jurisdiction, custody of the children would be left in limbo or, worse yet, would revert automatically to the allegedly neglectful parent without any judicial evaluation of the environment into which the children would be returned). In this case, the entire rehabilitative process lasted almost four years. From the moment the trial court acquired jurisdiction over appellant in the neglect matter, it retained jurisdiction until it made its final determination regarding a permanent placement for De.H. D.C.Code § 16-2320(a); In re K.M.T., supra, 795 A.2d at 690. Thus, the trial court did not need to reacquire jurisdiction over appellant because, in this case, De.H.'s adoption was the culmination of the rehabilitative process, which began nearly four years earlier upon the filing of the neglect petition.