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 appeal by Arsenio G. (Father) against the termination of his parental rights to his child, Cendrick R.B. The Children, Youth, and Families Department (CYFD) had taken the child into custody, and the Father's compliance with the treatment plan faltered after he absconded from a reintegration center. The Father argued that he needed more time to adjust after being released from incarceration to meet the requirements of his treatment plan.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (CYFD): Argued that they made reasonable efforts to assist the Father in adjusting the causes and conditions that brought the child into custody.
• Respondent-Appellant (Father): Contended that the district court erred in finding CYFD made reasonable efforts to assist him, arguing that his initial compliance with the treatment plan demonstrated his commitment, but he needed more time to adjust after his release from incarceration.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in finding that CYFD made reasonable efforts to assist the Father in adjusting the causes and conditions that brought the child into custody.
• Whether the Father should be given more time to adjust to his circumstances after release from incarceration to comply with his treatment plan.

Disposition

• The appeal by Arsenio G. (Father) against the termination of his parental rights to his child, Cendrick R.B., was affirmed.

Reasons

• Per Ives, J., concurred by Yohalem, J., and Wray, J.:
  The Court was unpersuaded by the Father's arguments that he needed more time to adjust after his release from incarceration to comply with his treatment plan requirements. The Father's memorandum in opposition did not successfully challenge the Court's proposed analysis of evidence supporting the district court's finding nor did it present additional facts or law to persuade the Court that the notice of proposed disposition was incorrect (paras 2-3).
  The Court highlighted that the Father's request for additional time did not align with the statutory requirement that a reunification plan be maintained for a maximum of fifteen months. It emphasized that parents do not have unlimited time to rehabilitate and reunite with their children and that the district court is not required to place children in a legal holding pattern while waiting for parents to resolve issues that led to the children being deemed neglected or abused (para 4).
  The decision to affirm the termination of the Father's parental rights was based on the totality of circumstances, including CYFD's statutory obligations and the Father's efforts, as well as the principle that both CYFD and the parent are responsible for making efforts toward the reunification of the family (para 3).