We emphasize, however, that this proposition must be applied with caution, because “protracted stays in [foster] care ... may deprive [neglected] children of positive, nurturing family relationships and have deleterious effects on their development into responsible, productive citizens.” In re T.W., 732 A.2d 254, 258 (D.C.1999) (quoting Smith v. Org. of Foster Families for Equality & Reform, 431 U.S. 816, 835–36, 97 S.Ct. 2094, 53 L.Ed.2d 14 (1977) ); see also In re J.G., 831 A.2d at 1001. Accordingly, we have held, “[i]f reunification with a biological parent is not feasible, and if a child is adoptable, then adoption is the statutorily preferred plan.... To ‘wait and see’ is rarely, if ever, an acceptable option when so much time has already passed.”

On the other hand, the "paramount consideration" in neglect proceedings is the best interest of the child. In re T.W., 732 A.2d 254, 258 (D.C. 1999). In some neglect proceedings the child's best interest may conflict with the parent's interest in calling the child as a witness.

“[O]ur child neglect statute ... was not intended to provide a procedure to take the children of the poor and give them to the rich, nor to take the children of the illiterate and give them to the educated, nor to take the children of the crude and give them to the cultured, nor to take the children of the weak and sickly and give them to the strong and healthy.” In re J.G., 831 A.2d at 1000 (quoting In re T.W., 732 A.2d 254, 262 (D.C.1999)). In any event, we have routinely held that “[f]amily poverty is not a reason, in and of itself, to find a child neglected, even if it plausibly could be argued that the child's best interests would be served by removal to a materially wealthier home.”

“[O]ur child neglect statute ... was not intended to provide a procedure to take the children of the poor and give them to the rich, nor to take the children of the illiterate and give them to the educated, nor to take the children of the crude and give them to the cultured, nor to take the children of the weak and sickly and give them to the strong and healthy.” In re J.G., 831 A.2d at 1000 (quoting In re T.W., 732 A.2d 254, 262 (D.C.1999)).

The trial court's retention of personal jurisdiction over parents for the entirety of the rehabilitative process is consistent with "[t]he neglect statute[, which] vests [the trial court] with broad authority to protect the safety and welfare of neglected children." In re T.W., 732 A.2d 254, 258-59 (D.C. 1999) (citing D.C. Code § 16-2320(a)). Furthermore, we have noted that retaining jurisdiction for the entire rehabilitative process is justified for a variety of reasons, including to protect the child's best interests.

We recognize that the court's primary concern, in cases of this kind, must be with the best interests of the child, and that the neglect statute is a remedial enactment which must be liberally construed to permit the court to carry out its obligations as parens patriae. See In re J.W., 837 A.2d 40, 44 (D.C. 2003); In re T.W., 732 A.2d 254, 258-59 (D.C. 1999). But although the court's authority as parens patriae is broad, "it must be exercised within the constraints established by the legislature."

See, e.g., In re J.L., 884 A.2d 1072, 1079 (D.C. 2005) (In termination of parental rights cases, including the waiver of consent, the judge "acts as parens patriae on the child's behalf.") (citation omitted); In re A.H., 842 A.2d 674, 684 (D.C. 2004) (citing In re T.W., 732 A.2d 254, 258 (D.C. 1999)) ("The court acts in a neglect proceeding as parens patriae and has the paramount obligation and broad authority to protect the best interests of the child where the parent is unwilling or unable to do so.") (internal quotation marks omitted); In re S.G., 581 A.2d 771, 778 (D.C. 1990) ("Neglect statutes authorizing state intervention on a child's behalf are remedial, and they should be liberally construed to enable the court to carry out its obligations as parens patriae."). In a case involving assault with a deadly weapon, we reiterated that: "Parens patriae requires the juvenile court to do what is best for the child's care so long as this disposition provides adequate protection for society.

was not intended to provide a procedure to take the children of the poor and give them to the rich, nor to take the children of the illiterate and give them to the educated, nor to take the children of the crude and give them to the cultured, nor to take the children of the weak and sickly and give them to the strong and healthy.Id. (quoting In re T.W., 732 A.2d 254, 262 (D.C. 1999) (quoting In re Rinker, 180 Pa.Super. 143, 117 A.2d 780, 783 (1955))). Parental rights, therefore, may not be terminated solely because of "poverty, ill-health, or lack of education or sophistication," but only upon a high showing that "such a drastic measure is necessary in order to protect the best interests of the child."

The neglect statute is "a remedial enactment designed to protect the welfare of neglected and abused children, and it must be liberally construed to achieve that end." In re T.W., 732 A.2d 254, 258 (D.C. 1999). The court acts in a neglect proceeding as parens patriae and has the "paramount" obligation and "broad authority" to protect the best interests of the child where the parent is unwilling or unable to do so.Id. To fulfill its obligation, the court has a duty to learn "`as much as possible about the entire situation'" before it. M.D., 758 A.2d at 33 (quoting In re J.A., 601 A.2d 69, 76 (D.C. 1991)).

We have recognized the court's broad authority in civil neglect proceedings to issue a wide variety of remedial orders, including, inter alia, transfer of legal custody, see D.C. CODE § 16-2320 (a)(3) (2001), termination of parental rights, see § 16-2320 (a)(6), and "such other disposition as is not prohibited by law and as the Division deems to be in the best interest of the child." § 16-2320 (a)(5); see generally In re T.W., 732 A.2d 254, 258-59 (D.C. 1999) (acknowledging the court's expansive authority). "Our child neglect statute vests the trial court with considerable latitude in crafting a disposition designed to reunite the family while safeguarding the well-being of the child." In re S.L.E., 677 A.2d 514, 522 (D.C. 1996) (internal quotation omitted).