In re T.G. - 684 A.2d 786 (D.C. 1996)

Rule:

The term "neglect," warranting the protective intervention of the state, is by its very nature the equivalent of "negligence," that is, implying habits or omissions of duty, patterns of neglect, et cetera. A trial court's inquiry in neglect proceedings must go beyond simply examining the most recent episode. The judge must be apprised of the entire mosaic. Quite obviously, the "entire mosaic" includes an examination of any history of, but also the reasons for, neglect, that is, chronic indifference, carelessness, dereliction, inability to perform, et cetera. The purpose of the child neglect statute is to promote the best interests of allegedly neglected children. The interests are presumptively served by being with a parent, provided that the parent is not unfit.

Facts:

After responding to the death of the children’s maternal grandmother, the officer reported that the house was in a deplorable state and that the children were dirty and in need of clean clothes and baths. Shortly thereafter, the children’s mother arrived with the two younger children. The officer drove the mother and the four children to the residence of the mother and father; he found that house likewise to be in a deplorable state. The two younger children were also dirty and in need of baths. The officer then took all four children into protective custody and carried them to the Department of Human Services (DHS). A social worker visited the two houses the same afternoon and thereafter corroborated the officer's description of the children and their living conditions. Subsequently, the DHS filed neglect petitions. The court ordered that all four children be placed in the custody of DHS, pending further action. A year later, the trial court found that the children were neglected within the meaning of D.C. Code Ann. § 16-2301(9)(B), (F) (1989 & 1996 Supp.). The trial court ordered the children committed to the Department for placement in foster homes. The parents challenged the decision.

Issue:

Was the finding that the children were neglected supported by sufficient evidence, thereby warranting the intervention of the state?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court reversed and concluded that the evidence supporting the finding that the children were neglected was insufficient as a matter of law. The court noted that the parents were not found to be unfit and that the trial court did not find neglect on physical or mental disability grounds. The court held that the Department failed to meet its burden of proof that any neglect was not due to the parents' lack of financial needs.