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 termination of parental rights of the Respondent (Mother) to her children. The Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) initiated the proceedings, leading to the district court's judgment against the Mother. The Mother's appeal challenges the sufficiency of evidence regarding the unlikelihood of change in the causes and conditions that led to the children's removal.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (CYFD): Argued that the causes and conditions that led to the children's removal were unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
• Respondent-Appellant (Mother): Contended that CYFD failed to meet its burden to establish that the causes and conditions leading to the children’s removal were unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Highlighted her efforts to attend medical appointments when possible, participate in individual therapy and visits, complete parenting classes, maintain an appropriate home, and provide financially for the children.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) met its burden to establish that the causes and conditions that led to the children’s removal were unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

Disposition

• The district court’s judgment terminating the Mother’s parental rights to the children was affirmed.

Reasons

• The decision was made by a panel consisting of Judges Jacqueline R. Medina, Kristina Bogardus, and Shammara H. Henderson. The panel affirmed the district court's judgment, remaining unpersuaded by the Mother's arguments against the proposed summary disposition. The court emphasized that the burden was on the Mother to clearly point out errors in fact or law in her opposition to the proposed disposition, which she failed to do. The court reiterated that on appeal, the question is not whether substantial evidence supports the opposite result but whether evidence supports the result reached, and it is not the appellate court's role to reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the fact-finder. The panel concluded that the evidence presented at the termination hearing was sufficient to support the district court's finding, affirming the judgment terminating the Mother's parental rights (paras 1-4).