In re A.M.
Annotate this CaseMother appealed from a judgment entered in the district court terminating her parental rights to her son. Mother argued (1) because she was in law enforcement custody on the morning of the trial, the court violated her due process rights by denying her motion to continue the proceedings; and (2) the district court erred in admitting testimony from one of the officers involved in her arrest because he had not been included in the Department of Health and Human Service's witness list; and (3) the court erred in its factual findings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Mother was not deprived of due process; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings or commit clear error in its factual findings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.