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 Larry G. (Father) to his son, Jordan G. (Child). The Children, Youth & Families Department (CYFD) filed a petition alleging abuse and neglect by both parents. Father, incarcerated at the time, pleaded no contest to neglect. A treatment plan was implemented for Father, which he initially made progress on. However, his parental rights were questioned following an arrest for residential burglary and subsequent issues, including drug use and failure to comply with the treatment plan (paras 2-7).

Procedural History

• District Court, November 2016: Father pleaded no contest to neglect (para 2).
• District Court, September 2019: CYFD requested Child’s permanency plan be changed to adoption (para 6).
• District Court, October 2019: CYFD moved to terminate Father’s parental rights (para 7).
• District Court, April 2020: Issued a judgment terminating Father’s parental rights (para 7).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (CYFD): Argued that Father failed to comply with his treatment plan, including drug use and lack of participation in required activities, justifying a change in Child’s permanency plan to adoption and the termination of Father’s parental rights (paras 6-7).
• Respondent-Appellant (Father): Contended that the proceedings violated his due process rights and that there was insufficient evidence to support the termination of his parental rights. He requested a second chance with Child (paras 1, 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether Father’s due process rights were violated in the termination of his parental rights proceedings (para 8).
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the termination of Father’s parental rights (para 8).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of Father’s parental rights (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found that Father’s due process rights were not violated, as he had adequate notice and opportunity to participate in the proceedings. The court applied the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test to evaluate due process and found that Father had not shown a reasonable likelihood that the outcome might have been different with additional procedures. The court also found substantial evidence supporting the termination of Father’s parental rights, noting Father’s ongoing difficulties with providing appropriate parental care and his failure to ameliorate the causes and conditions of neglect. The court concluded that CYFD and the district court’s requirement for Father to participate in inpatient substance abuse treatment was reasonably related to the causes and conditions of abuse and neglect alleged by CYFD and was not per se unreasonable (paras 9-33).