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 Jesse P. (Father) concerning his children, Zabrina P. and Trinity S. The Children, Youth & Families Department (the Department) developed a treatment plan for Father, who faced challenges including sporadic incarceration and the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite these efforts, Father failed to maintain contact with the Department, did not make progress on his treatment plan, and was incarcerated again.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (the Department): Argued that they made reasonable efforts to implement a treatment plan for Father, despite his incarceration and the pandemic. They also contended that Father failed to maintain contact or make progress on his treatment plan.
• Respondent-Appellant (Father): Challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination of his parental rights. He argued that the Department's efforts were not reasonable, particularly considering his incarceration and the pandemic. Father also suggested that the Department failed to adequately investigate a possible relative placement for the children.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Department's efforts to implement a treatment plan for Father were reasonable.
• Whether the causes and conditions of neglect were unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
• Whether the Department failed to adequately investigate a possible relative placement for the children.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of Father's parental rights.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Megan P. Duffy, Jacqueline R. Medina, and Shammara H. Henderson, unanimously affirmed the termination of Father's parental rights. The Court found that the Department made reasonable efforts to implement a treatment plan for Father, considering his sporadic incarceration and the pandemic (paras 4-5). The Court also held that Father's failure to maintain contact with the Department and make progress on his treatment plan supported the determination that the causes and conditions of neglect were unlikely to change in the foreseeable future (para 6). Furthermore, the Court rejected Father's argument regarding the Department's investigation into a possible relative placement, stating that sufficient evidence supported the termination of parental rights regardless of this issue (para 8).