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 Ericka G. (Mother) concerning her child, Carlos F. The Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) initiated proceedings against the Mother, leading to a legal challenge regarding the sufficiency of evidence supporting the termination of her parental rights and the validity of her no-contest plea to allegations of neglect.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (CYFD): Argued for the termination of Mother's parental rights based on statutory criteria that the child was neglected.
• Respondent-Appellant (Mother): Initially challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for termination of parental rights and later argued that the adjudication of neglect order was unclear, her no-contest plea might be invalid, and thus CYFD failed to meet the statutory criteria for neglect.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the termination of Mother's parental rights.
• Whether the adjudication of neglect order was unclear, and Mother’s no-contest plea was invalid, affecting the sufficiency of CYFD's evidence for neglect.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment terminating Mother's parental rights.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Jacqueline R. Medina, J. Miles Hanisee, and Kristina Bogardus, found that Mother's memorandum in opposition did not demonstrate error in the proposed summary disposition. The Court noted that new arguments raised in response to a calendar notice are treated as a motion to amend but found Mother's motion to amend the docketing statement untimely and lacking in necessary detail (paras 2-4). The memorandum failed to satisfy the criteria for amending the docketing statement to include additional issues, such as timeliness, stating all facts material to the consideration of the new issues, explaining how the issues were preserved, demonstrating just cause for not raising the issues originally, and compliance with appellate rules (paras 3-6). Furthermore, the Court held that Mother's late challenge to her no-contest plea and the adjudication of neglect order did not raise a viable issue, as there was no indication that Mother had ever raised this matter before, nor did she move to revoke or withdraw her plea or appeal from the adjudication order (para 7). The Court also observed that the memorandum merely speculated about the validity of the no-contest plea without factual support in the record or a claim that the record lacked grounds for a finding of neglect (para 7). Lastly, the Court found that Mother's remaining contentions regarding the sufficiency of the evidence did not present any new facts, law, or argument that persuaded the Court that the notice of proposed disposition was erroneous (para 8).