| |
TRANSFER OF GUARDIANSHIP. MOTION FOR CONTEMPT. In
this transfer of guardianship case, the appellate court affirmed
the trial court’s denial of the father’s motion to hold the Department
in contempt for failing to make service referrals and for failing
to develop a permanency plan that supported reunification. The appellate
court agreed with the respondent father that the court-ordered Specific
Steps 3 and 4 (“develop a periodic treatment/permanency plan and
review it with the respondent … and refer the respondent to appropriate
services and monitor his progress”) were sufficiently clear and
unambiguous as to put the Department on notice that it must make
some service referrals to support a reunification plan. However,
the court also found that the trial court record supported the finding
that the Department had made numerous efforts to work with the father
regarding service engagement and that the respondent father failed
to comply with service suggestions.
The appellate court also rejected the respondent father’s
claim that the trial court improperly granted guardianship to Marcus’s
grandparents. The appellate court agreed with the respondent that
there did not appear to be an ongoing basis for maintaining Marcus’s
commitment to the Department. However, the court noted the ample
evidence in the record that it was in Marcus’s best interests to
remain with his grandparents: he was bonded with them, he felt “at
home” with his grandparents, the father had no plans as to how to
provide for Marcus’s care, and the father had regular visitation
with Marcus at the grandparents’ home.
|
