SUMMARY: Although the mother’s non-compliance warranted her dismissal from the Family Drug Court program, it was error for the court not to grant the State’s oral motion for placement review based on allegations on renewal of drug use and risk to the children.
The children, Sire E. (DOB 4/10/92), Akeeme H. (DOB 3/10/93), Cahlil P. (DOB 11/6/02) and Hezekiah H. (DOB 4/13/06) were removed from the mother’s home in June 2006 based on allegations of the mother’s drug use. On June 14, the mother admitted to the allegations and was ordered to undergo a chemical dependency evaluation and have supervised visitation. In May 2007, the mother joined the Family Drug Court program. On November 21, 2007, the court authorized placement of the children to include the mother’s home. On July 8, 2008, it was recommended by the guardian ad litem and county attorney that the mother be discharged from Family Drug Court and the children removed from her home due to positive drug tests. The court indicated that the parties needed to file necessary pleadings to warrant removal. At an evidentiary hearing on July 15, 2008, the State made an oral motion for placement review, requesting removal of the children. No affidavits or other documentation was submitted supporting removal. The court noted that given the mother’s non-compliance in Family Drug Court, he was reluctant to schedule further hearings. On July 18, 2008, the court discharged the mother from Family Drug Court, canceled the evidentiary hearing and terminated the court’s jurisdiction over the case.
The State appealed, challenging the court’s refusal to allow an oral motion to be made for placement review and its termination of jurisdiction over the family. The Court of Appeals affirmed the court’s discharge of the case from Family Drug Court but found it was error to terminate jurisdiction over the family. It held that “[e]ven though the minor children were returned to [the mother’s] home in November 2007, [the mother’s] struggle with drugs has continued as evidenced by her repeated positive drug screens…[d]ue to the potential risk of harm to the minor children, the juvenile court erred in failing to entertain the motion for change of placement…to allow the county attorney to file the report.” The Court of Appeals noted that the conditions that brought the children into care still existed, that those conditions put the children at risk for harm, and that it is in their best interests that jurisdiction by the court continue.