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 concerns the termination of parental rights of two developmentally disabled parents over their physically and mentally disabled child. The child, who suffered from severe medical and psycho-social issues, was removed from the parents' care due to neglect and abuse, including failure to meet her medical needs. Despite initial progress under a treatment plan, the child’s condition deteriorated during a trial home visit, leading to her return to foster care. The child expressed a desire for reunification, but the guardian ad litem (GAL) recommended termination of parental rights (paras 1, 4-10).
Procedural History
- District Court, July 2, 2007: Terminated the parental rights of both parents, finding that the child had been neglected and that the causes of neglect were unlikely to change in the foreseeable future (paras 1, 11).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant Father: Argued that the district court erred by failing to appoint separate counsel for the child when she turned fourteen, as required by statute (para 2).
- Appellant Mother: Contended that the Children, Youth, and Families Department (CYFD) failed to make reasonable efforts to assist her in addressing the causes of neglect, failed to prove her inability to alleviate the neglect, and improperly based the termination solely on the child’s best interests (para 2).
- Respondent CYFD: Asserted that the termination of parental rights was justified and argued that the father lacked standing to raise the issue of the child’s right to separate counsel (paras 2, 15-16).
Legal Issues
- Did the district court err in failing to appoint separate counsel for the child when she turned fourteen?
- Whether the termination of parental rights was improperly based solely on the best interests of the child?
- Did the CYFD make reasonable efforts to assist the mother in addressing the causes of neglect?
- Did the father have standing to raise the issue of the child’s right to separate counsel?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the termination of parental rights and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 28).
Reasons
Per Bustamante J. (Fry CJ. and Vigil J. concurring):
Standing: The court held that the father had standing to raise the issue of the child’s right to separate counsel. The termination of his parental rights constituted a concrete injury, and the failure to appoint counsel for the child could have affected the trial’s outcome (paras 15-18).
Failure to Appoint Counsel: The court found that the district court erred in not appointing separate counsel for the child when she turned fourteen, as required by Section 32A-4-10(E) of the Children’s Code. The GAL’s statement that she could not act as the child’s attorney effectively constituted a request for removal, triggering the statutory obligation to appoint separate counsel. The child’s mental age was irrelevant to this requirement (paras 19-26).
Best Interests Standard: The court reaffirmed that the best interests of the child are the primary consideration in termination proceedings. While the mother argued that her fundamental rights were not properly considered, the court found no evidence of a due process violation (para 27).
Other Issues: The court did not address the evidentiary arguments raised by the parents, as the failure to appoint separate counsel was sufficient to reverse the termination order (para 3).