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 Leticia Q. (Mother) concerning her child, Alexis Q. The Children, Youth & Families Department (Department) engaged in a three-year period of extensive efforts to assist the Mother in addressing conditions that rendered her unable to properly care for the Child. Despite these efforts, it was concluded that the Mother lacks the capacity to provide for the Child's basic needs.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant (Mother): Argued that the Department failed to provide "reasonable accommodations" under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and contended that the Department did not make reasonable efforts to assist her in adjusting the conditions that rendered her unable to properly care for the Child.
• Petitioner-Appellee (Children, Youth & Families Department): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Department failed to provide "reasonable accommodations" under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for the Mother.
• Whether the Department made reasonable efforts to assist the Mother in adjusting the conditions that rendered her unable to properly care for the Child.

Disposition

• The appeal from the termination of parental rights was affirmed.

Reasons

• The decision was authored by Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee, with Judges Megan P. Duffy and Zachary A. Ives concurring. The court declined to consider the Mother's ADA argument further due to lack of preservation of this issue at the trial level (para 3). Regarding the Department's efforts to assist the Mother, the court found that over a three-year period, the Department made extensive efforts well beyond what is typically required, including two neuropsychological evaluations. The court concluded that the Department's efforts were reasonable and that there was no requirement for the Department to provide the extraordinary level of support suggested by the Mother to address her parenting deficiencies (para 4).