AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the adjudication of abuse and neglect concerning two children, Kaitlyn J. and Kamden J., against their mother, Keely J. The Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) presented evidence of physical, emotional, and psychological abuse inflicted or caused by Keely J., as well as lack of proper parental care and control. Witnesses for CYFD included two investigators and a therapist. The children's testimony, which was suspected by Keely J. to be manipulated by their father, was also part of the proceedings (paras 4-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (CYFD): Argued that the children suffered physical, emotional, and psychological abuse by the Respondent, and were without proper parental care and control. This was supported by testimony from CYFD investigators and a therapist (para 5).
• Respondent-Appellant (Keely J.): Challenged the reliability of the children's testimony, suspecting manipulation by their father. Also argued that the admission of out-of-court statements made by the children was hearsay, violated her due process rights, and constituted plain error (paras 5-8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the adjudication of abuse and neglect of Keely J.'s two children (para 2).
• Whether the admission of out-of-court statements made by the children violated the Respondent's due process rights and constituted plain error (para 7).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court order of abuse and neglect (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Kristina Bogardus, Zachary A. Ives, and Shammara H. Henderson, found that the standard of proof for abuse or neglect adjudication—clear and convincing evidence—was met. The Court employed a narrow standard of review, focusing on whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, could lead a fact-finder to determine that the standard was met. The district court's determinations were supported by testimony from CYFD witnesses, and the children's veracity and the reliability of their testimony were deemed matters for the fact-finder to resolve. The Court also addressed the Respondent's challenge to the admission of out-of-court statements by the children, concluding that the Respondent had not preserved the issue for review and had not established plain error. The Court affirmed the district court's order based on these findings (paras 2-10).