In re A.I.; I.I.

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed an interlocutory appeal challenging a change in the permanency goal for a neglected child from reunification with the birth mother to adoption. The court held that the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that it provided a reasonable reunification plan, made reasonable efforts to assist the mother, and that the mother failed to make adequate progress toward the plan’s requirements. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Holdings

1. A reunification plan is reasonable when it identifies the barriers to reunification, establishes specific goals addressing those barriers, and provides appropriate service referrals. A parent's refusal to participate in case planning or sign the plan does not invalidate the plan when the parent was given meaningful opportunities to participate and was informed of its requirements.
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 providers, and actively encourage, facilitate, and support the parent's access to and participation in those services. Reasonable efforts are assessed by examining the agency's efforts, not the parent's compliance.
3. A parent has not made adequate progress toward reunification when the parent fails to satisfy the principal treatment and visitation requirements of the reunification plan and remains unable to address the conditions that led to the child's removal.
4. When the government proves by a preponderance of the evidence that it provided a reasonable reunification plan, made reasonable efforts, and the parent failed to make adequate progress, a change from reunification to adoption is presumptively consistent with the child's best interests.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the government provided I.I. with a reasonable plan for achieving reunification.
2. Whether CFSA made reasonable efforts to assist I.I. in addressing the barriers to reunification.
3. Whether I.I. failed to make adequate progress toward the reunification goals.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by changing A.I.'s permanency goal from reunification to adoption.

Disposition

affirmed