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

• Geneva C. (Mother), a qualified individual with an intellectual disability, appealed the termination of her parental rights to her two children, Arthur and Israel. The Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) took custody of the children due to concerns over Mother's ability to attend to the children's needs because of her intellectual disability and the father's inability to care for the children due to his schizophrenia. The district court found the children were neglected and terminated Mother's parental rights, despite her efforts to comply with a treatment plan and improve her parenting skills with the assistance of a social worker provided late in the process (paras 4-16).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (CYFD): Argued that they had made reasonable efforts to assist Mother in adjusting the conditions that brought the children into custody, including providing reasonable accommodations for her disabilities.
• Respondent-Appellant (Mother): Contended that CYFD failed to satisfy the reasonable efforts requirement because their efforts did not include reasonable accommodation for her disability as required by the ADA, failed to show by substantial evidence that she was unlikely to be able to adequately parent in the foreseeable future, and challenged the refusal to appoint a guardian ad litem (GAL) to assist her (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether CYFD made reasonable efforts to assist Mother, incorporating the ADA requirement that services provided by CYFD reasonably accommodate a parent’s disability.
• Whether CYFD carried its burden to show by substantial, clear, and convincing evidence that, with the assistance of reasonable efforts by CYFD, Mother was unlikely to be able to adequately parent Children in the foreseeable future.
• Whether the district court erred in refusing to appoint a GAL to assist Mother (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the termination of Mother’s parental rights and remanded to the district court for reconsideration of its decision with full knowledge of the facts of the case (para 41).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found that CYFD's failure to timely provide the accommodations ordered by the district court at the dispositional hearing, seek modification of the court’s order, or advise the district court of these failures meant the district court’s finding that CYFD provided reasonable accommodations for Mother’s intellectual disability was not fully informed. The court also noted that the district court did not abuse its discretion or deny Mother due process by refusing to appoint a GAL, as Mother was competent and capable of making decisions with the advice of counsel. The court emphasized the importance of CYFD complying with the district court's orders and accurately reporting to the district court on the status of the proceedings and the facts affecting a parent’s progress. The reversal was based on the need for the district court to reconsider the case with full knowledge of CYFD's failures to comply with ordered accommodations (paras 17-41).