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 Norman M., II (Father) to his six children, following two separate neglect/abuse petitions filed by the Children, Youth & Families Department (CYFD). The first petition, filed in June 2018, concerned the neglect or abuse of the five older children by Father and Feleasen B. (Mother). The second petition, filed in May 2019 after the birth of Father's sixth child, N.M., alleged neglect or abuse of N.M. The district court found all six children neglected and consolidated N.M.'s case with her siblings' case before moving to terminate the parental rights of both parents to all six children (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Father: Argued that the termination of his parental rights to his youngest child violated procedural due process and contended that there was insufficient evidence to support the termination of his parental rights to all children (para 1).
• CYFD: Moved to terminate the parental rights of Father and Mother to the five older children and later amended the motion to include N.M., arguing that the parents had neglected the children and had done no work to allow for a safe placement with them (paras 2-4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the termination of Father's parental rights to N.M. violated his right to procedural due process.
• Whether there was clear and convincing evidence to support the judgment terminating Father's parental rights to all children based on neglect.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the judgment terminating Father's parental rights to all six children (para 1).

Reasons

• The court found that Father received timely notice of the allegations and the motion to terminate his parental rights to N.M., thus providing him with an opportunity to defend against the accusations. The court concluded that the procedures used by the district court did not violate Father's procedural due process rights and that the alleged procedural violations did not constitute fundamental error (paras 5-13). Furthermore, the court determined that clear and convincing evidence supported the district court's findings that the children were neglected, that CYFD made reasonable efforts to assist Father in adjusting the causes and conditions of neglect, and that the causes and conditions of neglect were unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the court upheld the termination of Father's parental rights to all children (paras 14-27).
  Judges involved in the decision were KRISTINA BOGARDUS, JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, and MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, retired, sitting by designation, with the opinion written by Judge Bogardus (para 29).