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

• Angel K. (Mother), a qualified individual with an intellectual disability protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), appealed the termination of her parental rights to her child, Peter K.-P. (Child). The termination was based on the determination that the Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) made reasonable efforts to accommodate Mother's disability in accordance with the ADA and that the causes and conditions of the neglect that brought Child into custody were unlikely to change in the foreseeable future (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (CYFD): Argued that they made reasonable efforts to accommodate Mother's disability as required by the ADA and that the conditions and causes of neglect were unlikely to change in the foreseeable future despite these efforts (paras 2-21).
• Respondent-Appellant (Mother): Contended that clear and convincing evidence does not support the district court’s determination that CYFD made reasonable efforts to accommodate her disability in accordance with the ADA, and that the causes and conditions of neglect that brought Child into custody are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether CYFD made reasonable efforts to accommodate Mother's disability in accordance with the ADA.
• Whether the causes and conditions of neglect that brought Child into custody are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of Mother's parental rights (para 22).

Reasons

• The Court, per Bogardus, J., with Ives, J., and Wray, J., concurring, held that:
  Substantial Evidence Supports the Finding That CYFD Made Reasonable Efforts to Accommodate Mother’s Disability: The Court found that CYFD made reasonable efforts to accommodate Mother's disability, including obtaining medical records, providing hands-on assistance, and ensuring treatment providers could deliver services in accord with Mother's disabilities. The treatment plan was personalized to Mother's needs, and CYFD's permanency planning workers took steps to accommodate her disability through various means of communication and support (paras 3-13).
  Substantial Evidence Supports the Finding That the Conditions and Causes of Neglect Were Unlikely to Change in the Foreseeable Future: Despite CYFD's efforts, Mother failed to cooperate with necessary referrals and assessments, delayed services, and did not internalize the need for completing the treatment plan. The Court noted Mother's refusal to engage in important aspects of her treatment plan and her failure to make significant progress on it. The evidence showed that Mother did not internalize behavioral changes or take responsibility for the reasons Child was taken into CYFD custody, leading to the conclusion that the conditions and causes of neglect were unlikely to change in the foreseeable future (paras 14-21).