Opinion ID: 1515769
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the hearing and the court's order

Text: A permanency planning hearing for K.W. and Ko.W. was scheduled for October 3, 1997. On the day of the hearing, the father's attorney filed what she termed a Motion for Return of Children to Biological Father or to Biological Mother and Father and Motion in Opposition to Recommendation for Adoption. In her motion, counsel represented that the respondents' father and mother were living together and that they intended to be married. The father again denied the allegations of sexual abuse, and he claimed that his innocence had been confirmed by the police and by the results of his psychological evaluation. With respect to his compliance with the conditions imposed by the court, the father represented: To date [the father] has attempted to gain the court's permission to visit his children. He has complied with the court's order for drug testing and has not tested positive since April 15, 1997. Drug records indicate that since December, 1996 until May of 1997, [the father] tested positive two times and negative 31 times. The last positive was on April 15, 1997 (almost six months ago). [The father] fulfilled his testing requirements on April 11, 1997 but continued to test until May 20, 1997. [The father] has attempted to enter the NA program and has asked his counsel to assist him in that area. He has also attended parenting class. He was under the impression that the Psychological evaluation fulfilled his therapy requirements, but having been informed that he is required to obtain therapy, indicated a willingness to undergo therapy. The father asked that the respondents be returned to the custody of their parents or, in the alternative, that the goal remain family reunification and that he be permitted, in the interim, to visit and communicate with the respondents. The October 3 hearing began with an extended discussion between the judge and the attorneys regarding whether or not an evidentiary hearing would be necessary to resolve the issues before the court. Anticipating an evidentiary hearing, the Assistant Corporation Counsel had subpoenaed several witnesses, including the mother and the father. The father's attorney represented to the court that she wished to call at least two witnesses, and perhaps more. The mother's attorney stated that if there was to be an evidentiary hearing, he was not prepared to proceed. The judge ultimately finessed the evidentiary hearing issue, stating: Well, let's go on and see how far we can go. The hearing was completed without the swearing of a witness and without the taking of formal testimony. Andrew Donelan, the DHS social worker, made an oral report to the court. [3] Mr. Donelan stated that the father had appeared for his psychological evaluation, that he had attended at least three parenting classes, but that he had not gone to his first AA/NA meeting until the day before the hearing. [4] Donelan represented that both parents had failed to appear at a number of scheduled meetings with him at DHS, and that these failures had resulted in a delay in their attendance at parenting classes and had made it difficult to proceed with various referrals. Donelan confirmed that there appeared to have been a misunderstanding regarding whether, after having appeared for his psychological assessment, the father was also required to participate in ongoing therapy. Finally, Mr. Donelan stated that he had attempted to enroll the father in a domestic violence class at the Superior Court, but he explained that the domestic violence charges against the father had been dismissed and that the father was apparently ineligible for the class. Mr. Donelan concluded by stating that the maternal aunt had done an excellent job in caring for the respondents and that she had signed a letter of intent to adopt the children. After further extensive debate and discussion between the attorneys, the judge suggested: Maybe the thing to do now is give [the parents] an opportunity and let's see just how serious they are, well-intentioned they are in doing what it is that they need to do in order to achieve the goal of reunification. The judge inquired whether there is any objection to granting the father visitation, even if it's at the Department of Human Services, supervised. The social worker responded that before such visitation took place, I would like to get a current assessment from the two therapists of [K.W.] and [Ko.W.]. Following the hearing, the two boys were examined by two different social workers. The individual who examined K.W. characterized the question of visitation with K.W.'s father as complex. According to the social worker, K.W. expressed some curiosity about his father, and [c]ontact with [the] father at a future date would probably be helpful. The social worker recommended, however, that planning for visitation should proceed with caution, and that ideally, visitation should begin at a point when [K.W.] experiences some inner strength and security. The social worker who examined Ko.W. approached the task of assessing the boy's state of mind somewhat obliquely. She reported that in a scenario in which the children were asked to set rules for their parents and for themselves, [Ko.W.] expressed a willingness and readiness to see his mother and felt it was okay for her to come to the aunt's house. It was also stated as a rule by him that he would continue to live with his aunt. He did not invite his father to the house. Further, when the subject of a possible site for a visit was broached, there was no suggestion and real reticence to accept a neutral area like Children & Family Services where the visit would be supervised. [5] Although the report did not so specify, the social worker apparently believed that Ko. W.'s failure to invite his father into the house or to suggest a meeting at a DHS office indicated that visitation ought not to be authorized. On December 23, 1997, the trial judge issued a memorandum opinion and order and held that the goal in this matter is changed from reunification to adoption. With respect to the issue of visitation, the judge wrote as follows: On September 17, 1996, respondents' father moved to compel visitation. [The father] was denied visitation with respondents on May 15, 1996 pending investigation into an allegation that he sexually abused [K.W.]. [6] Although contact with both parents is presumed to be in the best interest of the child, visitation may be denied if it would be detrimental to the child. In re M.D., 602 A.2d 109, 114-5 (D.C. 1992). At the December 31, 1996 hearing on the father's motion to compel visitation, the motion was held in abeyance pending a psychological evaluation of the father. [The father's] February 1997 psychological evaluation states he is more likely to physically abuse than to sexually abuse his children and recommends individual psychotherapy and domestic violence counseling to address his propensity toward violence. Because [the father] has not followed through with individual psychotherapy or domestic violence counseling, his propensity to abuse respondents has not been and cannot be evaluated. Moreover, [the father] has not made any other efforts which would demonstrate a desire to visit respondents, such as completing parenting classes or addressing his substance abuse problem. Reports as recent as November 1997 from respondents' therapists state neither child is psychologically ready or willing to resume contact with [the father]. See Lewis v. Lewis, 637 A.2d 70 (D.C.1994) (upholding decision not to allow visitation as long as children would suffer emotional injury). In light of [the father's] failure to address the issues which resulted in denial of visitation, respondents' psychologically vulnerable state, and the change in goal to adoption, the Court finds visitation with [the father] is not in the best interests of the children.