## Facts

- The District of Columbia filed a neglect petition alleging that S.C. failed to provide proper parental care or control for her thirteen-month-old son, D.C., within the meaning of D.C. Code § 16-2301(9)(B).
- S.C. left D.C. at home in the care of D.C.’s nine-year-old brother while S.C. went out to look for an apartment and to buy groceries.
- About six months earlier, D.C. had suffered an injury while under the supervision of the same older sibling.
- During S.C.’s absence on the date at issue, D.C. was burned.
- After S.C. returned and discovered the burns, D.C. received medical attention.
- At trial, D.C.’s father testified that S.C. received public assistance; this was the primary evidence presented about S.C.’s finances.
- The trial judge found that S.C. neglected D.C. by leaving a thirteen-month-old child in the sole care of a nine-year-old sibling, especially given the earlier injury that had occurred under the same supervision arrangement.
- The trial judge also concluded that the government met its burden on the statutory “not due to lack of financial means” component, reasoning in part that S.C. introduced no evidence that she could not afford a babysitter or could not have taken D.C. with her.

## Issues

1. Whether the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that D.C.’s lack of proper parental care was not due to S.C.’s lack of financial means, as required by D.C. Code § 16-2301(9)(B), when the record contained limited direct evidence of S.C.’s finances.
2. Whether the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof to S.C. by relying on the absence of evidence that she could not afford safer childcare or could not have taken D.C. with her.

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court’s neglect adjudication.
- The court held that the evidence supported the finding that S.C.’s conduct constituted neglect and that the statutory financial-means limitation did not bar the adjudication on this record.
- The court held that the trial court did not shift the burden of persuasion to S.C.; the government retained the burden and satisfied it.

## Legal Principles

- Under D.C. Code § 16-2301(9)(B), the government must prove neglect by a preponderance of the evidence, including that the child’s lack of proper parental care or control is not attributable to the parent’s lack of financial means.
- A neglect adjudication may rest on a parent’s unsafe supervisory choices (such as leaving an infant with an inadequate caregiver), even if the parent receives public assistance, so long as the finding is not based solely on poverty.
- The trier of fact may draw reasonable conclusions from the circumstances; the government need not present detailed proof of income or the cost of childcare in every case to satisfy the “not due to lack of financial means” element.
- Considering the absence of evidence supporting a claimed excuse (such as financial inability to obtain childcare) can be part of weighing the record and drawing conclusions; doing so does not, by itself, transfer the burden of persuasion from the government to the parent.
- On appeal, the court reviews whether the trial court’s findings are supported by the record and will not reweigh evidence where the trial court’s conclusions are supported by permissible inferences.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the neglect adjudication because leaving a thirteen-month-old child with a nine-year-old sibling—after a prior injury occurred under the same supervision—supported a finding of inadequate parental care, and the trial judge could reasonably conclude from the record that the deprivation was not shown to be caused by financial inability without shifting the burden of proof to S.C.


In the Matter of D.C., 561 A.2d 477 (1989)