Narrative Opinion Summary
This case concerns the appeal by a father against the termination of his parental rights over his child, Z.M., by a juvenile court. The primary legal issue revolves around the juvenile court's decision not to provide reunification services to the father during his incarceration. The child was removed from the mother's custody, and although services were ordered for her, the father's situation was not addressed as he failed to attend hearings, citing refusal of transport. The court concluded that the father would not regain custody until he appeared and participated in court, which he failed to do. The father did not request reunification services or object to their denial, leading to the court's decision based on his non-participation rather than his incarceration. His appeal, referencing a case, In re A.T., suggesting a new legal interpretation, was dismissed as he had not preserved the issues for appeal, with the court finding no exceptional circumstances to warrant review. Consequently, the termination of the father's parental rights was affirmed, highlighting the court's stance on the necessity of active participation in proceedings for incarcerated parents seeking reunification services.
Legal Issues Addressed
Exceptional Circumstances in Appellate Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify review of issues not preserved for appeal, despite Father's reference to a new legal interpretation in In re A.T.
Reasoning: However, the court concludes that no such circumstances justify review since Father did not seek services or participate meaningfully in the proceedings leading to the termination.
Preservation of Issues for Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Father's failure to preserve issues for appeal by not challenging the court's findings precluded the appellate court from reviewing the decision.
Reasoning: He acknowledges that he did not preserve the issues for appeal but claims exceptional circumstances exist due to the timing of In re A.T.
Provision of Reunification Services to Incarcerated Parentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The juvenile court was not required to provide reunification services to Father, as he did not request such services or object to their denial during proceedings.
Reasoning: Father did not seek reunification services or object to their denial, which stemmed from his failure to engage in proceedings, not solely his incarceration.
Termination of Parental Rights under Juvenile Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the termination of Father's parental rights due to his non-participation in proceedings and failure to seek reunification services.
Reasoning: The juvenile court’s order denying reunification services was based on Father’s non-participation, not solely his incarceration.