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 appeal by Kasie S. (Mother) against the termination of her parental rights concerning her child, Kaymberlynn C. The Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) took custody of the child, leading to legal proceedings to terminate Mother's parental rights due to her inability to remedy or alleviate the causes and conditions that led to the child coming into CYFD custody.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (CYFD): Argued that they made active efforts to assist the Mother in remedying the conditions that led to the child coming into CYFD custody by presenting a treatment plan and assisting the Mother in performing that plan, even altering efforts when not met with success.
• Respondent-Appellant (Mother): Contended that CYFD's efforts were insufficient, particularly criticizing the timing and adequacy of the offer for inpatient treatment. Mother argued that the expectations set by CYFD for her to make appointments, fill out paperwork, or complete her treatment plan were unrealistic given her situation.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) made active efforts to assist the Mother in remedying the conditions that led to the child coming into CYFD custody.
• Whether the district court violated the Mother's procedural due process rights by terminating her parental rights without hearing the guardian ad litem’s statement of the child's position.

Disposition

• The appeal by Kasie S. (Mother) against the termination of her parental rights was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Judges Shammara H. Henderson, J. Miles Hanisee, and Katherine A. Wray, unanimously affirmed the termination of Mother's parental rights. The Court found that CYFD made active efforts to assist the Mother by referring her to services, providing transportation, and tailoring visits to her needs, despite her sporadic engagement and refusal of efforts (paras 2-4). The Court also addressed the Mother's procedural due process rights argument, stating that her speculation on the child's wishes and the potential for a different outcome if those wishes were known did not provide a basis for reversal. The Court highlighted that the guardian ad litem (GAL) is required to advocate the child's expressed position only to the extent it is in the child's best interests and noted the Mother's failure to demonstrate that the GAL's non-compliance with procedural rules resulted in error or prejudice to her case (paras 5-7).