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 a dispute over the voluntary relinquishment of parental rights by the Respondent. The parties, who were divorced in December 2020, had a marital settlement agreement granting them joint custody of their young child. In September 2021, the Petitioner filed a request for a hearing to consider the Respondent's voluntary relinquishment of her parental rights, which was later approved by the district court. However, the Respondent subsequently filed a motion to set aside this order, arguing that it lacked a statutory basis, leading to the district court's decision to set aside its earlier ruling (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the Respondent waived her statutory argument by not specifying which statutory provisions had not been satisfied and failed to establish that a specific statutory ground for termination was satisfied (paras 3-4).
• Respondent-Appellee: Filed a motion to set aside the order for voluntary relinquishment of parental rights on the ground that no statutory basis had been satisfied for such relinquishment (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's approval of the Respondent's voluntary relinquishment of parental rights was valid without a statutory basis (para 2).
• Whether the Respondent waived her statutory argument by failing to specify which statutory provisions had not been satisfied (para 3).

Disposition

• The district court's decision to set aside the order approving the Respondent’s voluntary relinquishment of parental rights was affirmed (para 6).

Reasons

• Judges J. Miles Hanisee, Zachary A. Ives, and Jane B. Yohalem concurred in the opinion. The court found that the district court's initial approval of the voluntary relinquishment of parental rights lacked a statutory basis, as neither a formal adoption proceeding nor an Abuse and Neglect Act proceeding had been initiated. The court emphasized the necessity of strict statutory compliance for terminating parental rights and concluded that the earlier judgment was void due to non-compliance with statutory requirements (paras 3-5).