Opinion ID: 2584724
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The court properly considered new evidence regarding Naomi's circumstances.

Text: Kent argues that Dr. Cherry's neuropsychological evaluation of Naomi, her relapse into alcohol abuse, and her subsequent incarceration did not constitute evidence relevant to the petition to terminate his rights. We disagree. Whether a court should grant a petition to terminate the parental rights of one parent is not a question that can easily be separated from the question of whether to terminate the rights of the other parent. [22] If Naomi had been able to successfully remedy the conduct that caused Kenny to be in need of aid, it is likely that there would have been no need to seek termination of Kent's parental rights. As it is, neither parent was able to successfully complete a case plan in a reasonable timeframe, so it is necessary to terminate their parental rights in order for Kenny to achieve permanency. We agree with the superior court that the second petition was supported by new material facts that developed after the first trial. We therefore conclude that the third element of res judicata is not met in this case. [23] OCS's second petition to terminate Kent's parental rights is not barred by res judicata.