SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FAMILY COURT
JUVENILE AND NEGLECT BRANCH

In the Matters of:

EPIC RICHARDSON Case No.: 2021 NEG 162

Social File No.: 2019 JSF 784

Respondent. Magistrate Judge Tara Fentress

________________________________________________________________________

MOTHER’S OPPOSITION TO DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA’S MOTION FOR AN

ORDER AUTHORIZING AN IN-SCHOOL OBSERVATION OF THE RESPONDENT
The District of Columbia is asking the Court to authorize an in-school observation of Epic

notwithstanding Ms. Richardson’s opposition to such an observation. The District’s request is

unjustified and premature at this time given the posture of Epic’s educational placement, the limited

information provided to Ms. Richardson about CSAAC which indicates that Epic is too young for the

residential program, and the absence of any history from his medical team or DCPS’s evaluation records

for any diagnosis of autism, as explained below. I also bring to the courts attention that fact that prior

to the child's removal from his home, questions or inquiries about Epic being autistic or having

behavioral issues hasn't ever been a concern. Furthermore, CFSA seems not to mention that fact

that he was unenrolled from Bancroft without consent or notice, causing the new presence of

behavior problems. Epic is experiencing trauma and separation anxiety. The intrusive probing seems

to be inappropriate especially when CFSA removed Epic from his school placement at Bancroft

Elementary. The fact is that epic was doing wonderfully, he was excelling his expectations of his

IEP. Why would the government infringe on the parents rights, causing the child to be uprooted in

his stable educational placement. When the goal according to CFSA is stability. When any aspect of

a child's life is already stable, then CFSA shouldn’t go probing for issues that don't exist. There's an

1
old saying, you can't fix something that is not broken. Which in this case resulted in a child who was

doing exceptionally well to be uprooted educationally. The court should take notice to the fact that

the government is just simply looking for reasons to validate the clear possibility that the removal

was a mistake. Unnecessary probing for issues and problems that don't exist, is actually destroying

aspects of the child's life that are already stable, which isn't in the child's best interest.

Ms. Richardson’s counsel, Ethan Susskind, joins in this opposition.

I. EPIC MUST BE GIVEN A CHANCE TO LEARN SKILLS IN A NEW EDUCATIONAL

PLACEMENT
At an IEP meeting on December 13, 2021, at Murch ES attended by, inter alia, a CFSA

representative and Ms. Richardson, the District of Columbia Public Schools (“DCPS”)

acknowledged that DCPS is not providing Epic with the support he needs to control his

behavior and make academic progress in school. CFSA’s changed Epic’s school without

warning, reason or consent. Now behavioral concerns have risen. Therefore, they proposed

referring Epic to the State Superintendent of Education (“OSSE”) to find a therapeutic day

school with teachers and staff trained to work with students with his behavioral, emotional, and

academic needs. DCPS also proposed providing Epic with a dedicated aide, someone who

would work one-on-one with him to manage his emotional distress and help him develop

coping strategies he lacks. Ms.

Richardson agreed to both of these measures. She reasonably believes that, with the proposed

supports, Epic will learn to control his behavior in school AND in the foster home such that he

will do well in a therapeutic foster home. This is perceived as typical of child attached to

parents that have been removed from the family’s home. CFSA is illegitimately making choices

that may cause more damage to Epic’s emotional health, than good. Furthermore Epic has had

more dangerous seizures than he’s ever had in recent years.

2
 Under these circumstances, Epic should have an opportunity to develop the skills he

needs to control his behavior at school and at home before an alternative/group placement is

sought. An observation is not necessary at this time and the Court should not grant the

District’s request over Ms. Richardson’s objection.

II. THERE HAS BEEN NO SHOWING THAT CSAAC IS AN APPROPRIATE

PLACEMENT FOR EPIC
CFSA has failed to address Ms. Richardson’s concern that CSAAC is an “institution”.

CFSA has been unable to provide answers to simple questions about a home – any potential

home – that Epic might be placed at through CSAAC. CFSA cannot tell Ms. Richardson how

many children there might be in the home, or how many children there might be per bedroom,

or the staff-to-children ratio, or what a typical day at CSAAC might be like for her 5-year-old

child. CFSA’s failure to provide even this basic information makes it difficult for Ms.

Richardson to see the placement as anything but an institution as advertised in a web search.

Furthermore it isn't recommended that CFSA place children in residential non-home placements

that even they have NO knowledge about . She is opposed to any steps that advance CFSA’s

apparent push for placement within an organization that even CFSA knows very little about.

CFSA’s

“impression” that CSAAC is a wonderful place and that CSAAC has a good reputation is

simply an insufficient basis for placing a six-year-old medically fragile child. This is clearly

extremely inappropriate and premature.

Moreover, CSAAC staff member Sade Thomas, told the undersigned attorney that (1)

admission for the residences had been on pause for four months due to staff shortages, that (2)

the residential program accepted children starting at eight-years of age, and (3) the school

3
associated with the residences – Community School of Maryland – accepted children starting at

seven-years-old. Even if all kids of ”accommodations” can be made to allow Epic to be placed

through CSAAC, is it really in Epic’s best interest to be in a program that is not designed for

non autistic children in his age group? Ms. Richardson thinks not.

And, finally, it is unclear if Epic actually has autism, and is unlikely. It can be

perceived as discriminatory when a child suffers from communication issues to be labeled

autistic. Cfsa is forcing this diagnosis on Epic.

Based on receipt of the evaluation completed by Dr. Yu at CNMC in which Dr. Yu

provided a diagnosis of autism, a copy was provided to the Murch IEP team. Miss Richardson

was not notified, in regards to scheduling, or consent and was not present. In response, school

psychologist, Samuel Fiske, wrote the following:

"when reviewing the report provided, I am unsure what measures were used to
determine that he meets the diagnostic criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder according
to the DSM-5. Without specific measures, we would have to complete another
evaluation according to DCPS standards. There is a concern why and who is it that is
not willing to accept the possibility that epic is medically impaired and not autistic is not
clear . Is there a more detailed report or is there a way to access the specific measures
used that led to the diagnosis of ASD? If we could gather more information, then we
may be able to complete the [independent evaluation] review process rather than
conducting another entire evaluation."

Requests for this information from Dr. Yu directly, or through CFSA, were unanswered. It
seems that cfsa is determined on having Epic deemed autistic.

As a result, at the IEP meeting on December 13, 2021, DCPS declined to provide an autism

classification for Epic, maintaining, instead, his current classification of Other Health

Impairment based on his, neurobiological examination results that specify that white matter loss

cause the very symptoms that Epic displays including the seizures and strokes he suffers. Ms.

Richardson is uncomfortable placing Epic at a facility for children with autism when the only

4
diagnosis of autism is not even a month old obtained by a physician that knows absolutely

anything about Epic’s health or educational history. And presented is a diagnosis that is not

even accepted by DCPS or the team of physician’s that have treated Epic for the last 4 years.

CFSA should take full responsibility for causing the breakdown that Epic is experiencing, as the

record shows Epic has never suffered from behavioral issues until he was placed at Murch ,

without Ms. Richardson's consent or acknowledgment from Bancroft Elementary School where

he exhibited absolutely no behavioral problems. More specifically Epics prior IEP named one

of Epic strengths specifically that he was well-behaved and never caused any problems. These

news issues are taking Ms. Richardson by surprise as well as DCPS.

CONCLUSION

It is clear that Epic is having a difficult time controlling his behavior. Epic has never

had behavioral problems in the past. DCPS acknowledged that this is a new concern for Epic.

But Ms. Richardson is working with DCPS to help Epic gain the skills he needs to succeed in

school and in a therapeutic foster home. Epic has a chronic medical condition, CFSA seem to

show little regard for his health being impacted. History has proven that the new presence of

excessive seizures are a risk, and that this has also become a new concern. Epic is obviously in

a state of shock. Epic must be given the chance before any alternative placement is sought,

particularly one that is unknown and far from a good match based on what is known at this

time. The Court should deny the District of Columbia’s Motion for an Order Authorizing an

In-School Observation of the Respondent over Ms. Richardson’s

objection.

Respectfully submitted,
Iris S. Barnett
Iris S. Barnett Bar No. 416882

5
 15 14 St, SE Washington, DC 20003
202.543.2201
isbarnett@gmail.com

I certify that on this 22 day of December 2021, a copy of this MOTHER’S

OPPOSITION TO DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING AN
IN-SCHOOL OBSERVATION OF THE RESPONDENT was served on the following counsel of
record via Case File xpress: Michael Smith , AAG; Ethan Susskind, Esq.; Bim Imoisili,
Esq.; and Felicia Hardy. Esq.

Iris S. Barnett
Iris S. Barnett