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 Spirit G. (Father) concerning his children, Eden G., Aaron G., and Landon G. The Children, Youth & Families Department (CYFD) engaged in efforts over approximately two years to work with Father, who was uncommunicative and noncompliant with the treatment plan provided by CYFD. Despite these efforts, Father made no apparent progress, leading to the termination of his parental rights.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant (Father): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish the reasonableness of CYFD's efforts and contended that CYFD failed to make reasonable efforts because it did not adequately pursue the possibility of guardianship/placement with the paternal grandparent(s) (paras 3-4).
• Petitioner-Appellee (CYFD): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Children, Youth & Families Department (CYFD) made reasonable efforts to engage the Father and work towards reunification before terminating his parental rights.
• Whether the failure to consider placement with the paternal grandparent(s) constitutes a failure in CYFD's reasonable efforts and affects the legality of the termination of parental rights.

Disposition

• The appeal by Spirit G. (Father) against the termination of his parental rights was affirmed, maintaining the decision to terminate his parental rights (para 5).

Reasons

• The decision was delivered by Judge Jacqueline R. Medina, with Chief Judge Jennifer L. Attrep and Judge Zachary A. Ives concurring. The court found that CYFD made reasonable efforts to engage Father in a treatment plan over approximately two years, but Father's lack of communication and compliance, along with no apparent progress, justified the termination of his parental rights. The court was not persuaded by Father's argument regarding the failure to pursue placement with the paternal grandparent(s), noting that Father did not provide names of any fit and willing relatives for placement and the paternal grandparent(s) did not apply. The court concluded that the termination of Father’s parental rights was supported by clear and convincing evidence and that any shortcomings in CYFD’s placement decisions did not outweigh CYFD’s other efforts. The court affirmed the termination of parental rights based on the reasons stated in the notice of proposed summary disposition and the memorandum opinion (paras 1-5).