## Facts

- L.B. was the mother of three children: P.B. (age six), D.B. (age two), and T.B. (about one month old).
- Multiple reports raised concerns about the condition of L.B.’s home and the children’s well-being, including that the residence was filthy, the children looked hungry and frail, and their clothing was often dirty and sometimes smelled of urine.
- L.B. exhibited paranoid thinking and frequently acted hostile, agitated, and aggressive toward others, including social-services personnel.
- While the family lived in Maryland, P.B. missed so much school that he was in danger of failing.
- A Maryland court ordered L.B. to cooperate with social-services workers if she wished to keep custody of D.B., but L.B. accused workers of stalking her and attempted to avoid contact.
- L.B. moved with the children to the District of Columbia and did not enroll P.B. in school.
- A D.C. child-services worker attempted multiple times to visit L.B. to assess the children’s safety and the home environment.
- The worker eventually requested police assistance to conduct a safety check after being unable to complete an assessment.
- During the encounter, L.B. accused the officers of being “Muslim attackers,” laughed and cursed, refused to discuss the children’s safety, and refused to allow the officials to enter and inspect the home.
- The child-services agency removed the children from the home and placed them in protective out-of-home care, and the District filed neglect petitions.
- L.B. was granted supervised visitation, but her erratic and hostile behavior continued during visits.
- At the neglect hearing, evidence addressed (1) L.B.’s mental-health-related behavior, (2) how that behavior impaired her ability to parent, and (3) the children’s exposure to unsanitary conditions, hunger, and educational deprivation.
- The magistrate judge adjudicated all three children neglected; an associate judge of the Superior Court affirmed; L.B. appealed to the D.C. Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support adjudications that P.B., D.B., and T.B. were neglected children under D.C. Code § 16-2301(9), including findings tied to inadequate care, home conditions, and lack of education.
2. Whether the evidence supported a neglect finding based on L.B.’s mental condition impairing her ability to discharge parental responsibilities, even without a specific psychiatric diagnosis.
3. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by relying on the testimony and credibility assessments credited by the magistrate judge, including consideration of events occurring before the children’s removal.

## Decision

- The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court’s order, leaving in place the magistrate judge’s neglect adjudications for all three children.
- The court held that substantial evidence supported findings that the children lacked minimally adequate care and supervision, based on the conditions reported and observed and L.B.’s conduct that prevented safety assessment.
- The court held that evidence regarding L.B.’s paranoia, hostility, and erratic behavior supported the conclusion that her mental condition impaired parenting to a degree relevant under the neglect statute, and a precise diagnosis was not required.
- The court declined to reweigh evidence or revisit credibility determinations made by the magistrate judge where the record supported those findings.

## Legal Principles

- A neglect adjudication under D.C. Code § 16-2301(9) may rest on proof that a child is without proper parental care or control, subsistence, or education required by law, when the record shows conditions and conduct that place the child’s well-being at risk.
- A parent’s repeated refusal to cooperate with child-protection officials—especially refusal to allow access needed to assess safety—may be considered alongside home conditions and other evidence when deciding whether children are without proper care or supervision.
- Neglect based on a parent’s mental condition does not require the court to receive or accept a specific psychiatric label; the focus is functional: whether the parent’s condition interferes with the ability to provide safe, consistent care.
- On appeal, the court reviews whether the record contains substantial evidence supporting the neglect findings and generally defers to the trial-level fact-finder’s credibility determinations and reasonable inferences from the evidence.

## Conclusion

In re PB affirmed neglect adjudications for three young children where the record showed unsanitary living conditions, signs of hunger and poor hygiene, educational deprivation as to the school-age child, and a pattern of paranoid, hostile, and erratic behavior by the mother that impaired her parenting and prevented child-safety assessment, providing substantial evidence for neglect under D.C. Code § 16-2301(9).


In re PB, 54 A.3d 660 (2012)