Opinion ID: 6331449
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Neglect Trial

Text: At the neglect trial held on February 27, 2020, then-Magistrate Judge SeoaneLopez heard testimony from six witnesses — the day care director, two CFSA social workers, Z.M.’s pediatrician, C.M, and N.M. The District’s witnesses were Veronica Rudd, director of the Home Away from Home Child Development Center, and Ashley Jamison, CFSA social worker. The GAL called LaTrina Sheppard, CFSA social worker, and Dr. Rebecca Carlin, Z.M.’s pediatrician. C.M. called N.M. and testified on her own behalf. Veronica Rudd, director of the Home Away From Home Child Development Center, testified that the day care operated Monday through Friday, from 7:15 a.m. 5 until 5:45 p.m. When asked whether failure to pick up a child by closing time was a “problem,” Ms. Rudd explained that it was, because “staff goes home and the building closes.” During the six weeks Z.M. attended the day care, Ms. Rudd testified, C.M. typically dropped him off each morning and picked him up in the afternoons between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m. Only C.M. and her mother N.M. were on the list of persons who were preauthorized to pick the child up, and the day care would not release a child to someone not on the list absent specific parental consent for that occasion and an identification check. Ms. Rudd said C.M. did not inform the day care that anyone else would be picking up Z.M. on October 21, 2019, or November 1, 2019. On October 21, 2019, when C.M. did not arrive to pick up Z.M. by 5:45 p.m., Ms. Rudd began calling both C.M. and N.M., but could not reach either of them despite multiple attempts. At 7:00 p.m., after no one had come for the child, she called MPD, as required by the day care’s policy, and they transported Z.M. to CFSA. Ten days later, on November 1, 2019, Z.M. again was left at the day care past closing time. After unsuccessfully attempting to reach C.M., Ms. Rudd released Z.M. to CFSA social worker Ashley Jamison, who took him to the agency around 6:20 p.m. Ms. Jamison testified that she was assigned to the case when the police brought Z.M. to CFSA on October 21. Later that night, C.M. showed up at the agency to reclaim Z.M. C.M. told Ms. Jamison that she had arranged for a friend to 6 pick up Z.M. that day because she had to go to her workplace to do something. C.M. identified the friend only as “Da-Da.” When asked, C.M. could not provide Da-Da’s last name, address, phone number, or the text messages C.M. claimed to have exchanged with him about his picking up Z.M. for her. C.M. said she did not confirm with Da-Da that he had picked up Z.M. She assumed he had done so until she arrived home at 9:00 p.m. and found that Z.M. was not there. Ms. Jamison observed that C.M. appeared unconcerned and “seemed to be under the influence.” Ms. Jamison asked her if she was “on something,” and C.M. admitted to having smoked marijuana earlier that evening. Ms. Jamison then informed C.M. that to avoid Z.M.’s removal, there needed to be a safety plan in place for him while CFSA’s investigation of the situation was ongoing. C.M. agreed to having a maternal cousin, R.N., take interim custody of Z.M. beginning that night, and that she would have supervised visitation with Z.M. On November 1, 2019, Ms. Jamison learned that R.N. had not followed the agreed-upon safety plan for Z.M. and instead had returned him to C.M. Ms. Jamison then made several calls to both C.M. and N.M. to check on Z.M. Unable to reach either of them, she next called Z.M.’s day care. The day care was relieved to hear from her. It was late in the day, the day care was closing soon, Z.M. was still there, no one had come for him, and it had been unable to reach C.M. After 6:00 p.m., Ms. Jamison went to the day care and waited approximately fifteen minutes to see if C.M. 7 would show up. When she did not, Ms. Jamison brought Z.M. back to CFSA for the second time. Ultimately, Ms. Jamison testified, because C.M. twice in ten days had failed to pick Z.M. up from day care or make suitable alternate arrangements, had been unresponsive to the day care and the agency, and had not exhibited concern for her child, CFSA determined a removal was in Z.M.’s best interest. On November 4, 2019, the District filed a neglect petition and Z.M. was placed in shelter care pending its adjudication. LaTrina Sheppard, a CFSA permanency social worker, testified that during her first home visit after Z.M.’s removal, C.M. inquired about Z.M. and seemed relieved to know his foster care placement was in the District. However, when supervising visits with Z.M. and his family, Ms. Sheppard found it difficult to observe direct interaction between him and his mother due to the presence of N.M., and those positive interactions she did see “required[d] prompting.” For example, she noticed C.M. “relied on her mom” to ensure Z.M. did not run out of the visit room when “he continued to open and close the door of the visit room,” and there was a set of stairs nearby. Ms. Sheppard further testified that C.M. was required to attend parenting classes, undergo drug screenings, and complete an Addiction Prevention and Recovery Administration (APRA) assessment, and that while C.M. 8 verbally reported participating in the classes and screenings, Ms. Sheppard did not receive the corresponding confirmatory documentation. She reported that in this case, “it has been difficult to get details” from C.M. and that “communication ha[d] definitely been a barrier.” Dr. Rebecca Carlin, Z.M.’s pediatrician, testified that Z.M. was small when he was born and had a serious medical condition that required medication such that her team was “trying to track his weight very carefully” and was “quite concerned about medication compliance.” Though Z.M. received the medication during his early infancy, C.M. stopped giving it to Z.M. when he got older (which the pediatrician had not instructed her to do). Despite missing scheduled visits, Z.M. was up-to-date on his vaccinations. At the time of trial, C.M. was seventeen years old. She testified that she had arranged for Da-Da to pick up Z.M. from day care on October 21, and for Kyerra, “this girl” “from school,” to do so on November 1. C.M. explained that she had missed calls from the day care on October 21 because her phone was off, that she did not always receive calls unless she was at home, and that she learned that Z.M. was at CFSA only when she got home on that day. Puzzlingly, C.M. maintained that Da-Da in fact had picked up Z.M. from the day care on October 21. As for the second occasion on which she did not come for Z.M., C.M. acknowledged that CFSA had 9 picked him up on November 1. She explained, “The second time, the girl did not pick him up, she was involved in a lot of thing[s], didn’t even pick her own son up.” She said she learned that Kyerra had not gotten Z.M. only when she arrived home that evening, despite the repeated calls from the day care. N.M. testified that she had met Da-Da. She did not know his last name, but she said that Da-Da had picked up Z.M. from day care in the past, and that C.M. had asked him to pick up Z.M. from day care on October 21, 2019. N.M. said she herself could not receive calls or texts that day because her phone was “in and out” and “dying” and eventually she had to purchase another one. As for November 1, 2019, N.M. said that C.M. “had someone pick [Z.M.] up and they didn’t.” While crediting the other witnesses, the magistrate judge found C.M. not to be credible and N.M. to be biased in favor of C.M. and only partially credible. The judge found that, twice within a period of ten days, C.M. had been unwilling or unable to pick up Z.M. herself or to arrange for someone else to do so, leaving him on both occasions without an appropriate caregiver after the day care closed. The judge stated, “Even if the mother did ask a friend to pick up the respondent, she failed to comply with the requirements of the daycare to communicate the alternative caregiver and add him or her to the pickup list, and the result was the respondent being left at the daycare twice in a ten day period, resulting in the need to call MPD 10 and CFSA.” C.M.’s seeming indifference, lack of comprehension, and unsatisfactory explanations were highly concerning, even baffling. 2 The judge concluded that the District had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Z.M. was a neglected child within the meaning of subsections (9)(A)(ii) and (9)(A) (iv) of D.C. Code § 16-2301, but not within the meaning of subsection(9)(A)(iii).