## Facts

- Five minor children (about seven months to seven years old) lived with their mother (D.H.) and maternal grandmother in a public housing townhouse in Washington, D.C.
- From January to June 2000, the property manager repeatedly observed severe unsanitary and dangerous conditions, including human feces and rotting food on floors, and extensive cockroach infestation (including in food).
- The property manager observed a gas oven turned on with burners lit and the oven door open while children played nearby, and reported that the mother appeared unconcerned.
- A CFSA social worker visited three times in June 2000 and found the home “deplorably filthy” and roach-infested, with nonfunctioning heat and refrigerator, and conduct suggesting inadequate supervision and threatening discipline.
- CFSA removed the children in June 2000 and filed a neglect petition in the Superior Court (Family Division).
- At the fact-finding hearing, the government presented testimony from the property manager, CFSA social worker, and a police officer who assisted with removal; D.H. testified she cleaned regularly, bought fresh food daily, and attributed problems to housing conditions and utilities.
- The trial court found the children neglected under former D.C. Code § 16-2301(9)(B), concluding they lacked proper parental care necessary for health and that the deprivation was not due to lack of financial resources.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the finding that the children were without proper parental care or control necessary for their physical, mental, or emotional health under former D.C. Code § 16-2301(9)(B).
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the finding that the deprivation was not due to D.H.’s lack of financial means, as required by the statute’s poverty limitation.

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the neglect adjudication.
- The court held the evidence supported that the children lacked proper parental care given the persistent, extreme unsanitary and hazardous conditions.
- The court held the trial court could reasonably find the conditions were not attributable to poverty, but to D.H.’s failure to provide minimally adequate care within available means.
- The court deferred to the trial court’s credibility determinations and factual inferences, finding no clear error.

## Legal Principles

- Under former D.C. Code § 16-2301(9)(B), neglect requires proof that a child lacks proper parental care necessary for health and that the deprivation is not due to the parent’s lack of financial resources.
- Extreme, persistent unsafe and unsanitary home conditions may constitute neglect when they threaten children’s health and are tolerated by a parent.
- The government need not prove a parent had ample resources; it must show the harmful deprivation was not caused by lack of financial means.
- On appeal from a neglect adjudication, factual findings are reviewed for clear error, and credibility choices and reasonable inferences by the factfinder are upheld if supported by substantial evidence.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a neglect judgment where multiple witnesses described ongoing, severe filth and safety hazards in the home, and the trial court reasonably inferred the conditions resulted from inadequate parental care rather than unavoidable poverty.


In re A.H., 842 A.2d 674 (D.C. 2004)