In re K.M. M.M.

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the
Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound
volumes go to press.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
No. 15-FS-1417
IN RE K.M.; M.M., APPELLANT.
Appeal from the Superior Court
of the District of Columbia
(NEG-145-15)
(Hon. Janet Albert, Magistrate Judge)
(Hon. Robert Rigsby, Associate Judge)
(Argued March 28, 2017 Decided April 25, 2017*)
Kwame Willingham for appellant.
Pamela Soncini, Assistant Attorney General, with whom Karl A. Racine,
Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Todd S. Kim, Solicitor General, and
Loren L. AliKhan, Deputy Solicitor General, were on the brief, for appellee the
District of Columbia.
Cara Morse, Children‟s Law Center, guardian ad litem, with whom Melissa
Colangelo and Abraham Sisson, Children‟s Law Center, were on the brief, for
K.M.
Ronald Woodman filed a statement in lieu of brief on behalf of appellee
T.M.
*
The decision in this case was originally issued as an unpublished
Memorandum Opinion and Judgment. It is now being published upon the court‟s
grant of appellee guardian ad litem‟s motion to publish.
2
Before GLICKMAN and MCLEESE, Associate Judges, and RUIZ, Senior Judge.
GLICKMAN, Associate Judge: M.M., father of K.M. (who was two years old
at the time of the neglect proceedings), appeals the Superior Court‟s determination
that K.M. is a neglected child as defined by D.C. Code § 16-2301 (9)(A)(ii) and
(iii) (2012 Repl.). He argues that the court erred in finding sufficient evidence of
neglect because it gave too much weight to parental admissions that were entered
into evidence by the guardian ad litem (“GAL”) pursuant to Civil Rule 36. 1 M.M.
submits that these admissions were unreliable and uncorroborated, and that if the
court had properly weighed all the evidence, it would have found it insufficient to
support a finding of neglect. We conclude otherwise; the trial court did not err in
attaching great weight to the admissions by M.M. and by K.M.‟s mother. Indeed,
as Rule 36 (b) provides, the matters admitted by the parents were “conclusively
established.” Taking those admissions into consideration, we agree with the
Superior Court that the evidence in its entirety was sufficient to prove that K.M.
was a neglected child.
1
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 36. The Rule is applicable to child neglect and abuse
proceedings pursuant to Superior Court Neglect Rule 1 (b).
3
I.
Although the Child and Family Services Agency (“CFSA”) had been
working with T.M., K.M.‟s mother, since 2012, the incident that led to the removal
of K.M. and his older sister Z.C. occurred in April 2015. Monisha Maddox
testified at the neglect hearing that on the morning of April 21, 2015, she was
driving near the corner of M Street and North Capitol Street. Maddox observed
T.M. holding Z.C. by the hand and walking out into traffic yelling, “He shouldn‟t
do that, she‟s just a baby.” To avoid hitting T.M. with her car, Maddox pulled over
to the side of the road. She then got out of her car and motioned for T.M. to come
over to her.
T.M. approached Maddox with Z.C., handed the five-year-old child to
Maddox, a stranger to T.M., and walked away without giving Maddox any
instructions or contact information. Maddox placed Z.C. in her car and attempted,
unsuccessfully, to locate T.M. She then called 911 and eventually flagged down
police officers and explained what had occurred. Police officers contacted the
CFSA child abuse hotline, and a CFSA social worker, Denise Carter, was assigned
to investigate the case.
4
Carter testified that she heard allegations not only that T.M. had left Z.C.
with a stranger, but also that M.M. had tried to stab T.M. and K.M. 2 Carter spoke
with the police officers regarding the events of the morning and reviewed the
family‟s history with CFSA. Officers also brought M.M. and K.M. to CFSA.
Carter attempted to interview M.M. about what had occurred, but he was
uncooperative and would not provide the social worker with any information.
Additionally, CFSA could not locate T.M. Due to the unusual circumstances that
brought K.M. and Z.C. to the agency that day, the allegations made against M.M.,
and his failure to cooperate, Carter removed K.M. from M.M.‟s care and placed
both children in foster care. On April 22, 2015, CFSA filed a complaint alleging
that Z.C. and K.M. were neglected children.
In preparation for the neglect hearing, the GAL served T.M. and M.M. (each
of whom was represented by counsel) with requests for admissions pursuant to
Civil Rule 36. Among other things, M.M. was requested to admit that he tried to
stab T.M. and K.M. on April 21, 2015; that K.M. had witnessed domestic violence
between him and T.M.; and that he “[could] not care for K.M. because of his
2
Carter‟s testimony on this point was admitted for the non-hearsay purpose
of establishing why Carter removed K.M. and Z.C. from their parents, not as
substantive evidence of domestic abuse.
5
mental health issues.” T.M. was requested to admit similar matters. 3 Neither
parent responded to the requests, even though the GAL agreed to extend the
deadline. At the instigation of the GAL, the magistrate judge gave M.M. and T.M.
a further extension, until just a week before the scheduled start of the neglect
hearing, to answer the requests or have them treated as admitted at the hearing.
Neither M.M. nor T.M. responded to the magistrate judge‟s order. Thereafter,
neither parent moved to withdraw or amend their admissions.
The neglect hearing was held on June 24, 2015 and August 31, 2015. At the
hearing, M.M.‟s and T.M.‟s admissions were received in evidence. In addition, six
witnesses testified for the government and one witness testified for the GAL. The
witnesses included Monisha Maddox and Denise Carter, a social worker who
qualified as an expert in domestic violence, other social workers who had worked
with the family for a number of years, and mental health professionals. The GAL
also introduced K.M.‟s medical records. The testimonial and medical evidence
3
The pertinent admissions for T.M. included that “[o]n April 21, 2015,
M.M. tried to stab” her and K.M.; that on that same day T.M. gave Z.C. to a
woman she did not know; that when T.M. left the apartment, “[o]n April 21,
2015 . . . she left K.M. with M.M.” and did not see K.M. after that point; that
“K.M. has witnessed domestic violence between T.M. and M.M.[;]” that “T.M.
cannot care for K.M. because of her mental health issues[;]” and that she “has left
K.M. unsupervised[,]” and that she “currently does not have housing for K.M. to
live in.”
6
corroborated that K.M. had been exposed to domestic violence and unstable living
arrangements, that M.M. and T.M. had not provided him with adequate medical
care,4 and that they suffered from serious untreated mental health problems that
impaired their ability to care for K.M. 5
Based on all the evidence, including M.M.‟s and T.M.‟s admissions, the
magistrate judge found that the government had proved by a preponderance of the
evidence that both K.M. and Z.C. were neglected children within the meaning of
D.C. Code § 16-2301 (9)(A)(ii) and (iii). The magistrate judge rejected appellant‟s
argument that the “[c]ourt should give no or minimal weight to the admissions . . .
because [the parents] simply failed to respond to discovery rather than that they
affirmatively admitted to the facts.” She stated:
The request[s] for admissions were properly served upon
[the parents], they have been active participants in the
case, and they chose not to respond. Therefore, the court
finds this argument unpersuasive and to the contrary
4
K.M.‟s medical records indicated that M.M. and T.M. had not ensured that
his vaccinations were kept up to date and had not provided proper treatment for his
chronic respiratory problems.
5
Evidence at trial established that T.M. suffered from bipolar disorder with
psychotic features and that M.M. had been diagnosed with major depressive
disorder with psychotic features, post-traumatic stress disorder, and alcohol use
disorder in remission. Evidence also established that both parents were not in
compliance with their recommended treatments.
7
gives the admissions great weight. Further, given that the
admissions allege facts such as that [M.M.] attempted to
stab [T.M.] and [K.M.] and that the parents exposed the
children to domestic violence, if those facts were indeed
not true it is extraordinary that neither parent would file
denials to set the record straight. It is by their own
actions that the admissions were deemed admitted.
The associate judge affirmed the magistrate judge‟s determination as being
in accordance with law and supported by sufficient evidence. Only M.M. has
appealed; his appeal pertains only to K.M., as he is not the father of Z.C.
II.
Appellant‟s claim here is that the trial court erred by attributing too much
weight to his and T.M.‟s Rule 36 admissions, and that with the parental admissions
properly discounted, the evidence in its entirety was insufficient to prove that K.M.
was a neglected child. Our review of these contentions is subject to the constraints
imposed by D.C. Code § 17-305 (a) (2012 Repl.), which provides that a trial court
judgment “may not be set aside except for errors of law unless it . . . is plainly
wrong or without evidence to support it.”6 This is a difficult standard for appellant
to meet. The government‟s burden at trial was to prove that K.M. was neglected
6
In re K.M., 75 A.3d 224, 230 (D.C. 2013) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
8
by a preponderance of the evidence. In evaluating whether its proof was sufficient,
we are obliged to view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the
judgment, “giving full play to the right of the [magistrate] judge, as the trier of
fact, to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw reasonable
inferences.”7 For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the trial court did not
err in according significant weight to the Rule 36 admissions, and that the evidence
including those admissions was sufficient to support the adjudication of K.M. as a
neglected child.
Civil Rule 36 (a)(1) permits any party to “serve on any other party a written
request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters”
relating to the “facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either.” Rule
36 (a)(3) provides that “[a] matter is admitted” if the party to whom a request is
directed fails to answer or object to it in a timely and proper manner. Rule 36 (b)
goes on to say that “[a] matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established
unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended.”
M.M. and T.M. failed without explanation to respond in any way to the
GAL‟s requests for admissions, despite being granted extensions of time to do so,
7
Id.
9
and they never moved to withdraw or amend their consequent admissions of the
matters covered by the requests. The matters consequently deemed admitted and
“conclusively established” – for example, that M.M. had tried to stab K.M. and
T.M., that the child had been exposed to domestic violence between M.M. and
T.M., and that M.M. could not care for K.M. because of his mental health issues –
were sufficient evidence by themselves to prove that K.M. was a neglected child
under D.C. Code § 16-2301 (9)(A)(ii) and (iii). 8 Nonetheless, the magistrate judge
in this case proceeded cautiously and did not treat the Rule 36 admissions as
conclusive or rely on them exclusively. Instead, after extending the time for M.M.
and T.M. to respond to the requests, the magistrate judge considered the
circumstances surrounding the parents‟ failure to deny the truth of the facts they
were asked to admit and the gravity of those facts, in determining that it was
appropriate to give the admissions great weight in her evaluation of all the
evidence presented at the neglect hearing. The court‟s considered approach was no
abuse of discretion.
8
Cf. Burt v. First Am. Bank, 490 A.2d 182, 185 (D.C. 1985) (holding that
where a party has failed to respond to requests for admissions, the matters set forth
in the requests “are deemed admitted and may properly form the basis for a grant
of summary judgment”).
10
Appellant argues, however, that there was insufficient evidence to find
neglect because it was error to give great weight to his admissions. At oral
argument, he amplified this argument, contending the requests for admissions were
improper because they pertained to dispositive facts that were in dispute and that
(he asserts) the government would have been unable to prove otherwise. This
argument is incorrect as a matter of law; it is contrary to the express provisions of
Civil Rule 36. In addition to explicitly permitting requests to admit “the truth of
any” relevant matters without exception (whether relating to “facts, the application
of law to fact, or opinions about either”), the Rule specifies that a party may “not
object [to a request] solely on the ground that the request presents a genuine issue
for trial.”9 It is true that the proponent of a request for admission of a matter
should have reason to believe in good faith that the matter is true and reason to
think the adverse party may acknowledge it; but “[a]n answer, rather than an
objection, is now the only proper response if a party considers that it has been
asked to admit something that it disputes.” 10 That the matter in question would be
9
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 36 (a)(5).
10
8B CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE §
2256 at 339 (3d ed. 2010). At oral argument, appellant cited our opinion in Dorsky
Hodgson & Partners, Inc. v. Nat’l Council of Senior Citizens, 766 A.2d 54 (D.C.
2001), for the proposition that the “proper use” of Rule 36 “is as a means of
(continued…)
11
more difficult to prove without the use of an admission is not an objection to using
the Rule 36 procedure, it is a justification for it.
As appellant argues, this court has said that while a party‟s admissions may
“obviate the necessity of other evidence” in a child neglect case, they cannot do so
where they are “too problematical – too vague, unreliable and uncorroborated – to
bear on their own the weight of the charge of . . . neglect.” 11 Unlike the testimonial
(continued…)
avoiding the necessity of proving issues which the requesting party will doubtless
be able to prove.” Id. at 57 (quoting Pickens v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc., 413
F.2d 1390, 1393 (5th Cir. 1969)). This statement was not a holding limiting the
use of admissions, however; we quoted it solely in support of the proposition that
courts have broad discretion in the interests of justice to permit parties to respond
out of time to requests for admissions. Moreover, the statement appears to reflect a
view of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 held by some federal courts that was
rejected when that Rule was amended in 1970 to eliminate the requirement that
admissions be restricted to matters “of fact” and to resolve a division in the courts
over “whether an answering party may properly object to request[s] for
admission[s] as to matters which that party regards as „in dispute.‟” Fed. R. Civ. P.
36 Advisory Committee‟s Note: 1970 Amendment. Our Civil Rule 36
incorporates these changes. We therefore discount the quoted dictum in Dorsky
Hodgson to the extent it is construed to mean that a party must “doubtless be able
to prove” a matter in order to request that it be admitted. We likewise see no
warrant or authority for instituting a screening procedure of the sort appellant
advocated at oral argument in this appeal, whereby a party seeking to propound
requests for admission would first have to satisfy the court that, if necessary, it
could prove through other means the matter sought to be admitted.
11
In re M.D., 758 A.2d 27, 33 (D.C. 2000). We note that this case
concerned a parent‟s admissions on the witness stand at trial, not admissions
introduced in evidence pursuant to Civil Rule 36.
12
admissions in In re M.D., however, the Rule 36 admissions in the present case did
not fall within that “problematical” category. There was nothing vague about
them, and while Rule 36 dispenses with any requirement that admissions satisfy a
criterion of reliability or be corroborated, the testimony and medical evidence
introduced by the government and the GAL at trial provided corroboration and
support for the reliability of M.M.‟s and T.M.‟s admissions. Moreover, unlike the
testimony in In re M.D., the parental admissions in this case were able to “bear on
their own the weight of the charge of . . . neglect.”
In sum, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the
judgment, and considering all the evidence properly before the court, including the
matters admitted by the parents, we are satisfied that there was sufficient evidence
to support the findings of neglect in the case of K.M. We therefore affirm the
judgment of the Superior Court.
So ordered.