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 the Mother to her child, Carson H. The Mother initially wished to relinquish her rights due to her unwillingness to cease drug use but later changed her mind, pleading no contest and stipulating that Carson H. was a neglected child under the Children’s Code (paras 6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (Children, Youth & Families Department): Argued that they made reasonable efforts to assist the Mother with her drug addiction, parenting skills, lack of housing and employment, and therapeutic needs, which the Mother refused to take advantage of (para 10).
• Respondent-Appellant (Mother): Contended that the assignment of her appeal to the summary calendar violated due process, challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding CYFD's efforts and the likelihood of change in the causes and conditions of neglect, and argued that CYFD failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family. She also raised a new issue regarding the adjudication of abuse or neglect based on her no contest plea, which was not argued in the district court or in her docketing statement (paras 3, 5, 7, 9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the assignment of the appeal to the summary calendar violated due process (para 3).
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that CYFD made reasonable efforts to assist the Mother and that the causes and conditions of neglect are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future (para 2).
• Whether a no contest plea to allegations that do not support the adjudication of abuse or neglect is challengeable on appeal when not argued in district court or in the docketing statement (para 5).
• Whether CYFD failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family (para 9).

Disposition

• The termination of the Mother’s parental rights was affirmed (para 11).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee, Judge Jennifer L. Attrep, and Judge Megan P. Duffy, unanimously affirmed the termination of the Mother's parental rights. The Court found that the Mother did not directly attack the district court's findings or the Court's understanding of the facts, thus binding her to those facts (para 3). The Court also noted that neither due process nor equal protection requires assignment to one calendar or the other, and a party is not entitled to a particular calendar assignment (para 4). Regarding the Mother's challenge to her no contest plea, the Court pointed out that this issue was not argued in district court or in her docketing statement and that she failed to comply with the requirements for raising a new issue on appeal (para 5). The Court was not persuaded by the Mother's characterization of the issue regarding whether fetuses are neglected children under the Abuse and Neglect Act, stating that this Court has addressed similar issues before and that the Mother must first move to withdraw her plea in district court (para 8). Lastly, the Court detailed the substantial efforts made by CYFD to assist the Mother and emphasized that CYFD is only required to make reasonable efforts, not efforts subject to conditions unilaterally imposed by the parent (para 10).