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 Jeremy M. to his seven children, following allegations of neglect. The Children, Youth & Families Department (CYFD) took the children into custody due to these allegations. Despite being provided with a case plan aimed at addressing the conditions of abuse/neglect and facilitating reunification, Jeremy M. resisted participating in the plan. Testimonies from the children and therapists indicated instances of domestic violence and inappropriate behavior, leading to the children expressing a lack of bond with Jeremy M. and a preference for their current foster placements (paras 7-8).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (CYFD): Argued for the termination of Jeremy M.'s parental rights based on neglect and the inability of the parent to adjust conditions to properly care for the children despite reasonable efforts towards family reunification (para 7).
• Respondent-Appellant (Jeremy M.): Challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination of his parental rights and claimed a denial of due process based on the admission of abuse allegations at the termination hearing, which he argued amounted to a de facto amendment of the petition of neglect (paras 2-3, 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the respondent was denied due process based on the admission of abuse allegations at the termination hearing.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the termination of the respondent's parental rights on grounds of neglect/reasonable efforts (paras 2, 5).

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement to include additional issues was denied.
• The district court judgment terminating Jeremy M.'s parental rights to his seven biological children was affirmed (para 1, 10).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, led by Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee, with Judges Kristina Bogardus and Zachary A. Ives concurring, found that the respondent's due process rights were not violated as the court never relied on abuse as a separate ground for termination, distinguishing this case from precedent. The court also found that the respondent had not preserved the issue for appeal or demonstrated that any references to abusive behavior amounted to plain error. On the issue of sufficiency of the evidence, the court concluded that substantial evidence supported the trial court's decision to terminate parental rights based on neglect/reasonable efforts. The evidence presented demonstrated that the conditions of neglect would not change in the foreseeable future despite CYFD's reasonable efforts, and the children's testimonies and therapists' reports supported this conclusion (paras 2-9).