Opinion ID: 1933198
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The protections afforded by the child neglect statutes.

Text: The trial judge issued her order removing the children from the custody of the mother on the basis of findings that the mother had failed adequately to protect her daughter from sexual abuse and that the children were living in an unfit environment. These grounds implicate the District's child neglect statutes, and such allegations are ordinarily addressed in child neglect proceedings. By disposing of these issues under the rubric of an action for divorce, the trial judge dispensed with the protections routinely afforded to parents who have been charged with child abuse or neglect. The procedural safeguards in D.C.Code §§ 16-2301 et seq., which govern child neglect proceedings, are detailed and substantial. Before a child can be removed from a parent's custody, the Corporation Counsel must file a verified neglect petition that sets forth plainly and concisely the facts which are alleged to confer jurisdiction over the child upon the court. The petition must be served on the parent, guardian, or other custodian of the child named in the petition. See D.C.Code § 16-2306(a). The court is required to conduct a fact-finding hearing on the petition, and must make and file written findings in all cases as to the truth of the allegations and as to whether the child is neglected. D.C.Code § 16-2317(b). The court must then direct that a predisposition study and report ... be made by the Director of Social Services or a qualified agency ... concerning the child, his family, his environment, and other matters relevant to the ... disposition of the case. D.C.Code § 16-2319(a). The predisposition study must detail (A) the specific harms intervention is designed to alleviate; (B) the plans for alleviating these harms ...; (C) the estimated time in which the goals of intervention may be achieved or in which it will be known that the goals may not be achieved; and (D) the criteria to be used to determine that intervention is no longer necessary. D.C.Code § 16-2319(c)(1). In addition, if removal of a child from his or her parent is recommended, the predisposition plan must explain the recommended type of placement; ... the reasons why the child cannot be protected in his or her home;... the likely harm that the child will suffer from separation from the parent, and ways to minimize that harm; and the plans for maintaining contact ... to maximize the parent-child relationship consistent with the well-being of the child. D.C.Code § 16-2319(c)(2). The court must then address the matters set forth in the predisposition study, D.C.Code § 16-2320(f), in order to determine whether the presum[ption] that it is generally preferable to leave a child in his or her own home has been overcome. D.C.Code § 16-2320(a)(3)(C). If the court orders the removal of a child from a parent's custody, it may do so only for a period of no more than two years, unless that period is extended by further order of the court. D.C.Code § 16-2322. Finally, periodic reviews are required so that the court may determine whether it remains necessary for the child to be in the custody of a non-parent. D.C.Code § 16-2323. It is undisputed and, indeed, indisputable, that the mother received none of the protections which we have catalogued above. We mention only a few of the steps, routinely taken in neglect proceedings, that were omitted in this case. The Corporation Counsel never charged the mother with neglect of either of her children, and the mother was thus deprived of the right not to be subjected to neglect proceedings unless the responsible law enforcement official has determined that the institution of such proceedings was warranted. See In re J.J.Z., supra note 3, 630 A.2d at 191-93 (holding that where the Corporation Counsel determines in good faith that the evidence of neglect is insufficient, a child neglect proceeding must be dismissed even where the child's guardian ad litem objects). In addition, no predisposition study was prepared for the judge by the Director of Social Services or by any other comparable official, and the detailed planning prescribed by the statute in order to preserve the parent-child relationship was never done. [4] Finally, the order placing the children in the custody of the grandmother was of unlimited duration.