In re H.C.; K.C.

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed an order changing the permanency goal for H.C. from reunification with the mother, K.C., to adoption. The court held that the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act protect parents with disabilities from discriminatory restrictions on parental rights and require reasonable accommodations, but do not require reunification when reasonable accommodations cannot eliminate a significant risk to the child's health and safety. The court concluded that the evidence supported the finding that K.C. could not safely parent H.C. despite extensive services and reasonable efforts by the District.

Holdings

1. Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act protect parents with intellectual and psychiatric disabilities from discriminatory curtailment of parental rights and require reasonable accommodations that provide them an equal opportunity to achieve reunification.
2. The ADA and Rehabilitation Act do not require reunification when, based on an individualized assessment and objective evidence, a parent with a disability poses a significant risk to the child's health or safety that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodations.
3. The trial court did not violate the ADA or Rehabilitation Act and did not abuse its discretion in changing H.C.'s permanency goal to adoption because the evidence showed that, despite individualized services and support, K.C. had not made adequate progress and could not safely and effectively parent H.C. then or in the foreseeable future.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act require reasonable accommodations for a parent with intellectual and psychiatric disabilities in reunification services and permanency proceedings.
2. Whether the trial court violated those statutes by finding that K.C. had not made adequate progress toward reunification and changing H.C.'s permanency goal to adoption.
3. Whether the evidence supported the finding that K.C. could not safely and effectively parent H.C. even with the services and accommodations provided or available.

Disposition

affirmed