Where family court did not clearly err in determining that, pursuant to paragraph (a)(1), mother was not willing and able to provide child with a safe family home, even with the assistance of a service plan, appellate court's holding that clear and convincing evidence did not support the divestiture of mother's parental rights in child, pursuant to subsection (a), was erroneous. 95 H. 183, 20 P.3d 616.

A parent's allegations of a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act do not raise a defense in a proceeding to terminate parental rights under this section. 100 H. 335, 60 P.3d 285.

Agency properly awarded foster custody of child under subsection (a)(2) where evidence, including mother's incarceration and drug abuse, supported finding that it was not reasonably foreseeable that child could be reunited with mother no later than three years after award of custody to agency. 89 H. 477 (App.), 974 P.2d 1067.

Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to reunification efforts per se, but establishes the period of time which must be taken into account in predicting when a safe home will become available for the purpose of determining whether parental rights should be terminated. 89 H. 477 (App.), 974 P.2d 1067.

Nothing in chapter 587 precludes settlement of a proceeding brought under this section. 90 H. 200 (App.), 978 P.2d 166.