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 Spirit G. (Father) concerning his children, Iris G. and Scarlett G. The Children, Youth & Families Department (CYFD) created a treatment plan for Father, which he failed to comply with, showing no progress. Additionally, there was an issue regarding the potential placement of the children with their paternal grandmother, which was not pursued due to allegations of inappropriate behavior and the lack of credible evidence from Father supporting the placement.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (CYFD): Argued that their efforts to engage Father in a treatment plan were reasonable, considering Father's lack of communication and compliance. They also contended that the failure to place children with their paternal grandmother did not provide a basis for overturning the termination of parental rights.
• Respondent-Appellant (Father): Challenged the sufficiency of CYFD's efforts and contended that CYFD failed to make reasonable efforts to place the children with their paternal grandmother.

Legal Issues

• Whether the efforts made by CYFD to engage Father in a treatment plan were reasonable.
• Whether CYFD's failure to place the children with their paternal grandmother affects the termination of parental rights.

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, maintaining the termination of Father's parental rights.

Reasons

• The decision was authored by Judge J. Miles Hanisee, with Judges Jane B. Yohalem and Katherine A. Wray concurring. The court found CYFD's efforts to engage Father in a treatment plan reasonable, especially given Father's lack of participation (para 3). The court also noted that Father did not provide names of fit and willing relatives for placement and did not contest the trial court's finding on this matter (para 4). Furthermore, the court held that failure to consider an adult relative for placement does not provide a basis for overturning the termination of parental rights, especially when the termination is supported by clear and convincing evidence (para 5). The court concluded that Father did not present a persuasive argument or authority to warrant relief, affirming the termination of parental rights (para 6-7).