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 Kimberly M. (Mother) to her children, Logan K., Liberty K., Makenzie K., and Alexis K. The Children, Youth and Families Department (the Department) took the children into custody, leading to legal proceedings to terminate Mother's parental rights.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Mother): Contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the termination of parental rights (TPR) judgment, arguing that there was not clear and convincing evidence that the causes and conditions that brought the children into custody were unlikely to change in the foreseeable future and that the Department made reasonable efforts to assist her. Mother also argued that without the full audio transcript of the proceedings, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the TPR and the extent and reasonableness of the Department’s efforts could not be adequately determined (paras 2-3).
• Appellee (Children, Youth & Families Department): The Department's arguments or submissions are not directly detailed in the decision, but it can be inferred that they argued in favor of terminating Mother's parental rights based on the district court's judgment and the appellate court's decision to affirm that judgment (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was clear and convincing evidence to support the district court’s determination that the causes and conditions that brought the children into custody were unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
• Whether the Children, Youth and Families Department made reasonable efforts to assist the Mother.
• Whether the absence of the full audio transcript of the proceedings precludes a viable way to discern the sufficiency of the evidence to support the termination of parental rights.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights to the children (para 6).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Linda M. Vanzi, M. Monica Zamora, and Megan P. Duffy, considered Mother's memorandum in opposition but remained unpersuaded. The Court noted that Mother failed to specifically contest any of the district court's findings as unsupported by evidence, instead pointing to evidence contrary to the district court's findings without directly challenging the findings themselves. The Court emphasized that it does not reweigh evidence on appeal and that Mother did not point to any specific findings in the district court’s order that were unsupported by evidence. Furthermore, the Court mentioned that Mother did not respond to two of the issues raised in the docketing statement and addressed in the notice of proposed disposition, considering those issues abandoned. Based on these considerations, the Court declined to place Mother’s case on the general calendar and summarily affirmed the district court’s order (paras 3-6).