In re Interest of Adriana M. & Marciano M., A-21-625, A-21-626

Background:

Robert and Priscilla M. were the adoptive parents of Adriana (b. 2003) and Marciano (b. 2008); children were removed after Adriana reported long‑term sexual abuse by Robert in January 2021.
Adriana had moved out of the parents’ home in 2019–2020 and, while living with relatives, received virtually no financial, material, medical, or emotional support from Robert or Priscilla.
After the abuse allegation and Robert’s arrest, Priscilla consistently disbelieved Adriana, prioritized Robert (sought bond/bail), refused contact or visitation with Adriana, and later allowed Robert to return to the home on bond.
The State filed motions to terminate Robert’s and Priscilla’s parental rights to both children; juvenile court found insufficient evidence to adjudicate sexual assaults but found clear and convincing evidence of neglect/abandonment under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43‑292(2) and terminated both parents’ rights to both children.
Robert appealed and Priscilla cross‑appealed (procedural defect in her cross‑appeal designation noted); the Nebraska Court of Appeals conducted de novo review and affirmed.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of statutory grounds for termination (§ 43‑292(2))	State: Parents substantially, continuously, and repeatedly neglected Adriana by cutting off support and care after she left home, satisfying § 43‑292(2).	Robert/Priscilla: Evidence insufficient to meet clear‑and‑convincing standard; sexual‑abuse claims unproven and lack of contact not dispositive.	Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence of neglect/abandonment of Adriana supports termination of both parents’ rights to both children under § 43‑292(2).
Best interests of the children	State: Termination is in children’s best interests given abandonment, lack of parental improvement, and risk from Robert’s presence.	Priscilla: Argued termination not justified; pointed to visitation with Marciano and other factors.	Affirmed — no showing of parental improvement or a beneficial parent–child relationship; Priscilla’s support of Robert and his return posed risk to Marciano.
Adjudication under § 43‑247(3)(a) (juvenile in dangerous situation)	State: Children were juveniles in a situation dangerous to life/health/morals because parents neglected a sibling.	Robert: Argued adjudication erroneous given insufficient proof of the alleged sexual assaults and limited in‑court credibility assessment.	Affirmed — preponderance of evidence of parental neglect supports adjudication under § 43‑247(3)(a) (separate from unproven sexual‑assault allegations).
Procedural defect in Priscilla’s cross‑appeal designation	Priscilla sought reversal but filed her brief as an appellant rather than properly designating a cross‑appeal.	Robert (and rules): A defective cross‑appeal generally may be refused; courts have discretion to hear mistaken filings.	Court exercised discretion to consider Priscilla’s assignments despite procedural defect and addressed merits.

Key Cases Cited

In re Interest of Zoie H., 304 Neb. 868 (2020) (juvenile appeals reviewed de novo on the record).
In re Interest of Joseph S. et al., 291 Neb. 953 (2015) (termination requires clear and convincing proof of statutory ground; neglect may be shown without physical possession).
In re Interest of Isabel P. et al., 293 Neb. 62 (2016) (§ 43‑292 requires proof of one enumerated ground for termination).
In re Interest of Alec S., 294 Neb. 784 (2016) (children should not be kept in foster care awaiting uncertain parental maturity).
In re Interest of Joshua M. et al., 256 Neb. 596 (1999) (prior juvenile adjudication not required before termination under § 43‑292(2) where due process is afforded).
In re Interest of Vladimir G., 306 Neb. 127 (2020) (petition must give notice of grounds; adjudication standard is preponderance of evidence).
In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra H., 258 Neb. 131 (1999) (cross‑appeal procedural rules and court discretion to consider defective cross‑appeals).