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 appellant's appeal from a district court order that terminated reintegration therapy and transferred the matter to the children’s court for resolution of a pending adoption proceeding initiated by the children’s step-father.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Argued against the district court's decision to terminate reintegration therapy and raised concerns about not being able to afford the therapy. Additionally, the appellant requested a “peremptory challenge” to prevent a member of the Court of Appeals from deciding on the matter, alleging bias and also raised issues regarding the inability to review an audio recording of a hearing.
• Petitioner-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in terminating reintegration therapy.
• Whether the appeal is moot due to the termination of the appellant's parental rights in a subsequent proceeding.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order terminating reintegration therapy and transferring the matter to the children’s court for the resolution of the pending adoption proceeding.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Michael E. Vigil, Cynthia A. Fry, and Linda M. Vanzi, found that the appellant failed to demonstrate reversible error by the district court and concluded that the issue presented by the appellant's appeal was moot. The Court addressed the appellant's request for a “peremptory challenge” and found no basis for such a challenge within the rules of appellate procedure. The Court also dismissed the appellant's concerns about bias and the inability to review an audio recording, noting that unfavorable rulings do not demonstrate bias and that the appellant had ample time to review the record. The Court reasoned that the termination of the appellant's parental rights in a subsequent proceeding rendered the appeal moot, as no relief could be provided to the appellant in this case. The Court noted that if the appellant is successful in appealing the termination, the district court could revisit issues of custody and visitation.