## Facts

- N.H. was born on December 22, 1985, at D.C. General Hospital; the mother, T.H., lacked stable housing and a plan for the child.
- Because of the infant’s medical problems and the mother’s lack of housing, N.H. remained hospitalized until February 3, 1986.
- After discharge, T.H. briefly placed N.H. with a cousin, then asked the District’s child welfare agency to place N.H. in 90-day emergency care.
- During the emergency-care period, T.H. was found intoxicated in the street and was admitted to St. Elizabeth’s Hospital on an emergency basis; the record reflected mental illness and repeated hospitalizations.
- The District filed a neglect petition alleging N.H. was neglected because T.H. was unable to discharge parental responsibilities due to mental illness and because N.H. lacked proper parental care.
- The trial court ordered shelter care for N.H., allowed supervised visitation, and ordered T.H. to submit to a mental examination; visitation was conditioned on cooperation with the social worker.
- T.H. sought to end shelter care by proposing family assistance (maternal grandmother and adult siblings), but the court proceeded to adjudication and found N.H. neglected.

## Issues

1. Whether due process requires proof by clear and convincing evidence, rather than a preponderance of the evidence, to adjudicate a child neglected.
2. Whether authorizing disclosure and use of a parent’s medical and mental-health information in neglect proceedings violates constitutional privacy rights.
3. Whether the neglect adjudication and dispositional-review procedures (including temporary dispositions and periodic review) are constitutionally inadequate because they infringe the parent’s liberty interest in custody and care.

## Decision

- The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the neglect adjudication.
- The court held that a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard for initial neglect adjudications is constitutional.
- The court upheld the statutory authorization to use relevant medical and mental-health information in neglect proceedings.
- The court rejected the claim that the overall neglect procedures are generally unconstitutional, emphasizing temporary dispositions and periodic judicial review.

## Legal Principles

- Parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of their children, but the interest is not absolute; the government may act to protect children through judicial proceedings.
- Clear and convincing evidence is constitutionally required for termination of parental rights, but not necessarily for temporary, reviewable neglect adjudications.
- In assessing due process for neglect adjudications, courts balance the parent’s interest, the risk of erroneous deprivation under existing procedures, the likely value of additional safeguards, and the government’s interest in child protection.
- A neglect system may satisfy due process with a preponderance standard when it includes procedural protections such as notice, hearings, representation, supervised visitation options, and periodic review of placement and supervision.
- Use of medical and mental-health evidence in neglect proceedings is permissible when closely connected to determining parental capacity and child safety and when disclosure is limited to the child-welfare context.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the neglect adjudication and sustained the statutory scheme against due process and privacy challenges, concluding that the preponderance standard and limited use of mental-health information are permissible in temporary, reviewable child-protection proceedings that include ongoing judicial safeguards.


In re N.H., 569 A.2d 1179 (D.C. 1990)