Cassaundra Wilkins v. Eugene Ferguson

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed a trial court order granting a father unsupervised visitation with his child after prior findings of intrafamily offenses and allegations of inappropriate touching. The court reversed, holding that the record did not support the trial court’s factual findings and that the court failed to make the statutory findings required before awarding visitation to a person previously found to have committed an intrafamily offense.

Holdings

1. Once a party seeking modification proves by a preponderance of the evidence that there has been a substantial and material change in circumstances and that modification is in the child's best interest, a prior finding that the other parent committed an intrafamily offense remains relevant and shifts the burden to that parent to prove that visitation will not endanger the child or significantly impair the child's emotional development.
2. Before awarding visitation to a parent previously found to have committed an intrafamily offense, the trial court must find that the child and custodial parent can be adequately protected from harm and that the offending parent has satisfied the statutory burden concerning danger and emotional impairment.
3. The trial court could not authorize unsupervised visitation when no health professional recommended it and the record contained no qualified expert evidence that unsupervised visitation was appropriate.
4. A trial court deciding whether to award or modify visitation must explicitly consider the statutory best-interest factors, including the mental and physical health of the individuals involved and evidence of an intrafamily offense.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court properly modified visitation after finding a substantial and material change in circumstances.
2. Whether D.C. Code § 16-914(a-1) required the previously adjudicated intrafamily offender to prove that visitation would not endanger the child or significantly impair her emotional development.
3. Whether the trial court adequately considered the statutory best-interest factors, including the child's and parents' mental and physical health and evidence of intrafamily offenses.
4. Whether the trial court's order permitting unsupervised visitation was supported by correct legal principles and sufficient record evidence.

Disposition

reversed