The court heard testimony from [THERAPIST], [CHILD]’s therapist; [FORMER SOCIAL WORKER], who was previously assigned as [CHILD]’s social worker from [AGENCY] ([AGENCY]); [THERAPIST], [MOTHER]’s therapist; [COMM. SUPP. WORKER], Community Support Worker for [MOTHER] and [ILP FATHER]; [MOTHER]; and [NEIGHBOR], [MOTHER]’s and [ILP FATHER]’s neighbor. The court found [PETITIONER], [THERAPIST], and [SOCIAL WORKER] to be credible. The court also accepted the following written testimony from current [AGENCY] social worker, [CURRENT SOCIAL WORKER]. [CURRENT SOCIAL WORKER] (“[CURRENT SOCIAL WORKER]”) is employed as a social worker by [AGENCY] in [CITY, STATE]. [ADDITIONAL FACTS REDACTED] The court also took judicial notice of the following stipulated facts: The birth mother of [CHILD] is [MOTHER]. The birth father of [CHILD] is [FATHER]. [FATHER] died in [MONTH YEAR]. [ILP FATHER] acted in loco parentis for [CHILD] when [HE/SHE] was in [HIS/HER] mother’s and his care. [ILP FATHER] and [MOTHER] have resided together since around [YEAR]. CFSA had an open case with [MOTHER] and [ILP FATHER] from approximately [MONTH YEAR] until [MONTH YEAR]. [ADDITIONAL FACTS REDACTED] On [DATE], the permanency goal was changed from reunification to guardianship with [PETITIONER]. [CHILD]’s behavioral and mental health issues have improved considerably since [HE/SHE] has been in [PETITIONER]’s care.
Permanency Goals: Progress has not been made by the parent toward achievement of the permanency plan/goal . . . and the goal was changed today to reflect the lack of progress notwithstanding agency efforts. Goal: Guardianship of [CHILD] with a relative, [PETITIONER], Respondent’s [RELATIONSHIP]. Date of Achievement [DATE]. Reasons for change from reunification or adoption to guardianship or legal custody and reasons why that goal is in the child’s best interests . . .: [ADDITIONAL FACTS REDACTED] Orders: Mother to provide proof of receipt of ongoing mental health services. Visitation: Supervised by the agency or its designee. [ADDITIONAL FACTS REDACTED] MW-16 Certified Copy of Amended Permanency Hearing Order dated [DATE]. Purposes: Parties in Attendance: Include [PETITIONER]. Reasonable Efforts: The court concludes that the agency has made reasonable efforts to achieve the goal of guardianship, as described by the following . . . : [ADDITIONAL FACTS REDACTED] Contrary to Welfare: The court further concludes that it would be contrary to the welfare of the child to be returned home during this time because: [ADDITIONAL FACTS REDACTED] Visitation: Visitation between child and mother shall be supervised by the agency or its designee, may become unsupervised at the discretion of the social worker in consultation with the GAL. Visitation between child and Mr. [ILP FATHER] shall be supervised by agency or its designee. Conditions of visitation: NO DISCUSSION OF THE CASE WITH [CHILD].
[CHILD] loves [HIS/HER] mom and is bonded to [HIM/HER]. However, [CHILD]’s relationship with [HIS/HER] mother is not an appropriate parent-child relationship. [MOTHER] is unable to provide consequences for [CHILD]’s misbehavior and she gets upset if [CHILD] is mad at [HIM/HER] and apologizes to [CHILD]. The Court finds that [CHILD] loves [PETITIONER] and is comfortable with [HIM/HER]. [CHILD]’s therapist testified that [CHILD] calls [PETITIONER] “[NICKNAME]” and relates to [HIM/HER] and [HIS/HER] [SON/DAUGHTER] as family members. [MOTHER] testified that [CHILD] has “always had a relationship” with [PETITIONER]. [CHILD] also has a relationship with [PETITIONER]’s mother, whom she calls “[NICKNAME],” and they see each other weekly. To the extent feasible, the child’s opinion of his own best interest in the matter. (D.C. Code § 16-2383 (d)(4).) The court credits testimony that [CHILD] would like to live with [MOTHER]. However, the court also credits testimony that if [HE/SHE] is unable to live with [HIS/HER] mother, [CHILD] would like to live with [PETITIONER]. In finding reunification is not appropriate at this time, the court has considered [CHILD]’s therapist’s recommendation that reunification is not in [CHILD]’s best interests, [CHILD]’s age, [HIS/HER] emotional maturity and cognitive level, and [HIS/HER] obvious academic, social, and emotional progress in [PETITIONER]’s care. Evidence that drug-related activity continues to exist in a child’s home environment after intervention and services have been provided. (D.C. Code § 16-2383 (d)(5).)