Mother challenge in District of Columbia

2005This argument, however, contravenes the "strong public policy, enhanced by federal legislation, disfavoring the protracted retention of children in foster care, and a `wait and see' option indefinitely deferring adoption or termination of parental rights . . . ." In re J.G., 831 A.2d at 1001 (citing In re L.L., 653 A.2d 873, 887-89 (D.C.1995)); see also In re T.M., 665 A.2d 950 , 952 n. 3 (D.C.1995).

2005This argument, however, contravenes the “strong public policy, enhanced by federal legislation, disfavoring the protracted retention of children in foster care, and a “wait and see’ option indefinitely deferring adoption or termination of parental rights ....” In re J.G., 831 A.2d at 1001 (citing In re L.L., 653 A.2d 873, 887-89 (D.C.1995)); see also In re T.M., 665 A.2d 950 , 952 n. 3 (D.C.1995).

2002In In re G.H., 797 A.2d 679 (D.C.2002), we recently had occasion to examine the standing of the live-in paramour of the respondent children’s mother to challenge a neglect adjudication which resulted in the removal of the children from the mother’s home.

2002In In re G.H., 797 A.2d 679 (D.C.2002), we recently had occasion to examine the standing of the live-in paramour of the respondent children's mother to challenge a neglect adjudication which resulted in the removal of the children from the mother's home.

2017Citing this court’s decision in Mitchell v. Hughes, 755 A.2d 456 (D.C. 2000), the Mother contends that “[i]t cannot be the law that a parent subject to a custody order providing for routine visitation in the District may unilaterally and without permission remove the children from the area and thereby defeat the District’s jurisdiction and force [the other parent] to litigate in a far-off forum.” Various standards of review have potential application in our resolution of the Mother’s claim.

1994Id. at 1073 .

1994Id. at 1073 .