In re L.H.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
FARRELL, Associate Judge:
On these appeals from the termination of appellant’s parental rights, the only issue necessitating a published opinion is appellant’s claim that a court-appointed guardian ad litem is not statutorily authorized to file a motion to terminate parental rights (a TPR motion) following an adjudication of neglect, and that a contrary reading of the statute would violate constitutional due process.1 We reject this as well as appellant’s remaining contentions, and affirm.
I
The two statutory provisions which, we conclude, answer the issue of statutory construction appellant…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Santosky v. KramerSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Parreco v. District of Columbia Rental Housing CommissionDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
- In re D.R.M.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- In re A.B.E.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- In re C.T.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1999
- In re D.B.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2008
- In re P.D.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- Fields v. McPhersonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2000
- In Re CTDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1999
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.