Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
In re A.C.G

8 Citing cases

  1. Macklin v. Johnson

    No. 18-FM-976 (D.C. Feb. 10, 2022)   Cited 4 times
    Holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting mother "final decision-making authority" based on practical issue of parents' inability to reach joint decisions about the children's welfare

    In re C.T., 724 A.2d 590, 597 (D.C. 1999). We review the trial court's findings of fact for clear error, In re A.C.G., 894 A.2d 436, 439 (D.C. 2006), and will "reverse a trial court's custody decision only upon a finding of an abuse of discretion," Estopina, 68 A.3d at 793. In applying these standards, we first look to whether the trial court considered "all relevant factors and no improper factor," and then we "evaluate whether the decision is supported by substantial reasoning . . . drawn from a firm factual foundation in the record."

  2. In re M.V.H.

    143 A.3d 94 (D.C. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    “We review the trial court's legal determinations de novo and its findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard.” In re B.J., 917 A.2d 86, 88 (D.C.2007) (quoting In re A.C.G., 894 A.2d 436, 439 (D.C.2006) ).III.

  3. In re Petition of T.J.L

    998 A.2d 853 (D.C. 2010)   Cited 5 times

    The determination of what is in the best interests of the child is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. In re A.C.G., 894 A.2d 436, 443 (D.C. 2006). "This standard limits our review to a determination of whether `the trial court has exercised its discretion within the range of permissible alternatives, based on all relevant factors and no improper factor.'"

  4. In re Petition of W.D

    988 A.2d 456 (D.C. 2010)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that mother did not grasp her opportunity interest because she was not a "consistent presence in [her daughter's] life," did not "assist with ... [her daughter's] care," and did not appear at the adoption hearing

    The trial court was correct to consider the D.s' advanced age in its analysis of T.M.'s best interests. See In re A.C.G., 894 A.2d 436, 443 (D.C. 2006). As noted above, however, the D.s were in good health at the time of the hearing.

  5. Tsintolas Realty Co. v. Mendez

    984 A.2d 181 (D.C. 2009)   Cited 210 times
    Holding that attaching a copy of a settlement agreement to a motion did not constitute a material breach of a confidentiality provision

    The facts regarding this issue are undisputed, and we review the trial court's legal conclusions de novo. In re A.C.G., 894 A.2d 436, 439 (D.C. 2006). The landlord argues that the Superior Court case jacket is a public record, and that by causing a copy of the agreement to be placed in the jacket in conjunction with their motion to enforce, the tenants effectively made the document available to any member of the public who cared to examine the file.

  6. Wilkins v. Ferguson

    928 A.2d 655 (D.C. 2007)   Cited 16 times
    In Wilkins, a trial court granted unsupervised visitation with a three-year-old child to her father, despite having previously found that the father had committed intrafamily offenses by physically abusing the child's mother and by touching the child inappropriately.

    Generally, "[w]e review the trial court's legal determinations de novo and its findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard." In re A.C.G., 894 A.2d 436, 439 (D.C. 2006) (citing In re J.D.W., 711 A.2d 826, 830 (D.C. 1998)); under D.C. Code § 17-305(a) (2001), "the [trial court's] judgment may not be set aside except for errors of law unless it appears that the judgment is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it," In re N.D., 909 A.2d 165, 169 (D.C. 2006). "Findings of fact which result from a misapprehension as to the applicable law, however, lose the insulation of the `clearly erroneous' rule."

  7. In re B.J

    917 A.2d 86 (D.C. 2007)   Cited 7 times
    Applying T.J. standard where alternative caretaker testified during termination of parental rights hearing that she would consider adopting or filing for guardianship of the children

    "We review the trial court's legal determinations de novo and its findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard." In re A.C.G., 894 A.2d 436, 439 (D.C. 2006). We find no error and therefore affirm the TPR order.

  8. Darden v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

    911 A.2d 410 (D.C. 2006)   Cited 16 times
    Stating that "[a]n agency fails to base its decision on substantial evidence in the record when it ignores material evidence in the record"

    Cf. In re A.C.G., 894 A.2d 436, 444 (D.C. 2006) (issue of guardianship was raised at trial where there was testimony about petitioner's willingness to accept a guardianship). See Hearing Tr. at 73: