In the Matter of MB & BB , FH# 2017-1383

Reversed - DCF did not have reasonable cause to support a finding of neglect because Appellants did what they thought was best to address their child's inappropriate behavior and there was no evidence to suggest that their physical discipline adversely impacted their children's emotional stability and growth. The Appellants had two children, aged 6 and 4 at the time. Child J, aged 6, was diagnosed with ADHD after the school raised concerns about his academics and sexualized behaviors. J's behavior affected other students as well as his sister, A. After reviewing the evidence, it was determined that Appellants provided a structured home environment for both children, and their use of homeopathic interventions to address their child's behavioral issues was not a substantial risk to his safety or well-being.