Legal Opinion

In re L.H.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided December 20, 1993No. Nos. 92-FS-352, 92-FS-428PublishedCited by 9 opinions

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

  1. Santosky v. KramerSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. Parreco v. District of Columbia Rental Housing CommissionDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
  4. In re D.R.M.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
  5. 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

  1. In re C.T.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1999
  2. In re D.B.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2008
  3. In re P.D.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
  4. Fields v. McPhersonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2000
  5. In Re CTDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1999

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API