Opinion ID: 1124410
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The district court found that jurisdictional grounds to terminate Marla's rights were abandonment, abuse, neglect, failure of parental adjustment, and only token efforts. The judge also specifically pointed out that Marla lacks basic parenting skills and is unable to provide care for Christina. With regard to abuse and neglect, Marla argues that since Christina had been in DCFS's custody since March 1994, Marla could not have abused or neglected her during that period of time. However, Marla offers no argument to dispute whether she abused and neglected Christina when she was in her care, or whether Marla would not abuse or neglect her child in the future if her rights are not terminated. After a thorough review of the facts in the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding clear and convincing evidence of abuse and neglect. With regard to the failure of parental adjustment, Marla's only allegation against this ground is that the [DCFS] wants to terminate their [custody] case because they are frustrated by dealing with an immature teenager who will not do what she is told and the desire to punish her for her disobedience. (Emphasis added.) Marla does not dispute that she has failed to comply with her case plan; rather, she admits it in the previous quote from her appellate brief. We conclude that the district court did not err in finding failure of parental adjustment, as Marla never accomplished one goal in either of her homemaking contracts or the case plan. Additionally, Marla would not follow through on any task for which DCFS provided her with assistance. This includes attending an appointment with welfare to receive ADC, Medicaid, and prenatal care. In her brief, Marla does not dispute, nor even mention, the abandonment ground or the token efforts ground. She instead argues that DCFS did not put forth enough reasonable efforts to help Marla comply with her case plan. Marla states that the only efforts by DCFS were the two brief periods of homemaker intervention. She then argues that in light of the fact that she is immature, only sixteen years old, and comes from a dysfunctional family, DCFS's services were inadequate. Martin and Hutchinson both testified as to the efforts they put forward in helping Marla comply with her case plan. They testified that Marla had a very short attention span and would never finish anything she started. Hutchinson also testified that she has worked with other sixteen-year-old mothers who put forth reasonable efforts to take care of their babies; therefore, Marla's age should not be an excuse. Accordingly, we conclude that the court could reasonably have found clear and convincing evidence that jurisdictional grounds exist.