In re A.I.; I.I., Appellant

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s change of a child’s permanency goal from reunification with the birth mother to adoption. The court held that the government established by a preponderance of the evidence that it provided a reasonable reunification plan, made reasonable efforts to address the conditions leading to neglect, and that the mother failed to make adequate progress under the plan. The opinion was amended on August 1, 2019, to reflect changes to page two and footnote four.

Holdings

1. A reunification case plan is not defective merely because a parent refuses to participate in case planning or sign the plan, where the agency provided meaningful opportunities to participate and the plan identified the barriers to reunification, established specific goals, and provided appropriate service referrals.
2. To satisfy the reasonable-efforts requirement, CFSA must identify the barriers to reunification, prepare a case plan recommending services tailored to the child and family, refer the parent to appropriate service providers, and actively encourage, facilitate, and support the parent's access to and use of those services. Efforts are assessed by examining the agency's conduct, not solely the parent's compliance.
3. A parent has not made adequate progress toward reunification when the parent fails to complete the central treatment and visitation requirements of the reunification plan and does not make progress sufficient to safely and effectively meet the child's needs.
4. When the government proves by a preponderance of the evidence that it provided a reasonable reunification plan, made reasonable efforts to assist reunification, and the parent failed to make adequate progress toward the plan, a change in permanency goal from reunification to adoption is presumptively consistent with the child's best interests.
5. In deciding whether to change a permanency goal, the trial court may consider the circumstances surrounding the child's removal, including relevant evidence from the earlier neglect proceedings.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the government provided a reasonable reunification plan.
2. Whether CFSA made reasonable efforts to assist I.I. in addressing the conditions that led to A.I.'s neglect and achieving reunification.
3. Whether I.I. made adequate progress toward the reunification goals.
4. Whether the trial court properly considered the circumstances surrounding A.I.'s removal and evidence from the earlier neglect proceedings in deciding the permanency-goal change.

Disposition

affirmed