In re AC
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
597 A.2d 920 (1991)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
AC’s mother, PC (defendant), disappeared when AC was two months old. AC’s father, RR (defendant), voluntarily put AC in the custody of the District of Columbia Department of Human Services (DHS). Two months later, RR visited AC while AC was hospitalized briefly, but that was the last time RR had contact with AC. For years, the DHS tried and was not able to locate RR, and RR never contacted the DHS. The DHS finally located RR and set up a visit, but RR did not show up. At a hearing on neglect charges and the DHS’s continued custody of AC, RR told the DHS that he was unable to care for AC because he was unemployed. The DHS unsuccessfully continued to try to contact RR, checking with RR’s mother, shelters, hospitals, jails, and even the morgue. When AC was five years old, AC’s guardian ad litem (plaintiff) moved to terminate AC’s biological parents’ parental rights. At that point, AC had been living with the same foster family for four years, and a permanent, adoptive family had been arranged for him if his biological parents’ rights were terminated. RR was in jail and was transported from jail to the courthouse for an initial hearing. However, RR was later released from jail and did not attend the primary hearing on the termination motion. The trial court terminated PC’s and RR’s parental rights, and RR’s attorney appealed the ruling on RR’s behalf.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wagner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 821,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.