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 respondent-appellant, Estevan R. (Father), appealing the district court's denial of his request to terminate kinship guardianship concerning Aurora R., Cianna R., and Nevella R., children under kinship guardianship. The petitioners-appellees are Brenda P. and Raymond P.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant (Father): Argued for the termination of kinship guardianship. In his memorandum in opposition to the court's proposed disposition, he cited legal authority on contempt and conflicts of interest issues, which he admitted were not raised in court until the appeal.
• Petitioners-Appellees (Brenda P. and Raymond P.): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's denial of Father's request to terminate kinship guardianship was erroneous.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of Father's request to terminate kinship guardianship.

Reasons

• Per Ives, J., concurred by Yohalem, J., and Wray, J.: The Court found Father's memorandum in opposition unresponsive to the specific concerns identified in the Court's notice of proposed disposition. Father's arguments were deemed insufficient as they repeated earlier arguments without addressing the Court's concerns and introduced issues not raised at the trial level. The Court emphasized that it reviews cases based on the arguments and evidence presented in the lower court, not new issues introduced on appeal. Father failed to meet the burden of demonstrating errors in fact or law in the district court's decision, leading to the affirmation of the district court's denial of his request to terminate kinship guardianship (paras 1-3).