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 a self-represented litigant, the Father, who appealed the district court's decision denying his motion to terminate his own parental rights. The Mother, also filing pro se, was granted sole and full custody of the Children without objection from the Father. The Father's appeal included a desire to either restore his custody rights to the Children or terminate his parental rights. His admission to unidentified acts underlying criminal charges of child abuse, which led to his entry into a preprosecution diversion program in a separate case, was also noted (paras 1, 4-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Father: Argued for the restoration of his custody rights to the Children or, alternatively, for the termination of his parental rights. He did not preserve arguments relative to the restoration of his custody rights in district court nor provide grounds for the district court’s rulings on such matters. His arguments for terminating parental rights were based on his admission to acts underlying criminal charges of child abuse (paras 2-5).
• Mother: Supported the district court's decision to deny the Father's motion to terminate his parental rights. Filed a memorandum in support of the summary disposition proposed by the court (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Father's motion to terminate his own parental rights should be granted.
• Whether the Father's custody rights to the Children should be restored (para 2).

Disposition

• The district court's order denying the motion to terminate the Father's parental rights was affirmed (para 6).

Reasons

• The panel, consisting of Judges Jacqueline R. Medina, Megan P. Duffy, and Katherine A. Wray, concurred in the decision. The court did not consider the Mother's response to the Father's memorandum in opposition or the Father's reply to the Mother's response, as these were not contemplated by the appellate rules. The Father's new arguments regarding the restoration of his custody rights, raised in response to a calendar notice, were treated as a motion to amend but were denied due to lack of preservation and detail. The court found that the Father's admission to acts underlying criminal charges of child abuse, without further detail, did not demonstrate that the district court erred by refusing to terminate his parental rights under the Abuse and Neglect Act. The court remained unpersuaded by the Father's arguments and affirmed the district court's decision (paras 1-6).