In re Interest of Alec S.
294 Neb. 784
| Neb. | 2016Background
- DHHS removed Alec S. from mother Brenda G.'s custody after reports of severe mental-health crises and recommended inpatient care; Brenda did not follow through and Alec was adjudicated a child under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a).
- Juvenile court ordered a reunification plan (individual/family therapy, psychiatric care, urinalysis, outpatient substance treatment, supervised visitation); Alec remained in out-of-home placement throughout proceedings.
- After repeated missed or inconsistent treatment sessions, positive alcohol/drug tests, unstable housing, and only supervised visitation, the State moved to terminate Brenda’s parental rights under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292(2), (6), and (7).
- At the termination hearing the State presented four witnesses (two of Alec’s therapists and DHHS staff); Brenda presented no witnesses. Evidence showed limited compliance with services and some recent, late improvements after the termination motion was filed.
- Juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination and that termination served Alec’s best interests; the Court of Appeals reversed as to best interests, and the Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination is supported by statutory grounds (§ 43-292) | State: Brenda repeatedly neglected/refused necessary parental care; reunification efforts failed; Alec 21 months in out-of-home care (subsections 2, 6, 7). | Brenda: Compliance and fitness issues not proved clearly; record lacks some specifics relied on by State. | Juvenile court and Supreme Court: Statutory grounds proved by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Whether termination is in the child’s best interests | State: Continued supervised visitation, lack of stable housing, untreated mental health/substance issues, and risk of Alec languishing in foster care warrant termination. | Brenda: Bond with Alec; recent engagement in therapy suggests preservation of parental relationship is preferable. | Supreme Court: Best-interests presumption overcome; termination was in Alec’s best interests. |
| Whether the Court of Appeals properly relied on In re Interest of Aaron D. | State: Aaron D. is distinguishable—here there were multiple dispositional orders, direct testimony from therapists, and more documentary evidence. | Court of Appeals: Evidence similar to Aaron D., insufficient to show best interests. | Supreme Court: Distinguished Aaron D.; record here was sufficient and clearer. |
| Whether last-minute improvements bar termination | State: Late, prompted compliance after filing of termination motion not enough to prevent termination. | Brenda: Recent progress indicates potential for reunification. | Supreme Court: Last-minute attempts do not prevent termination; timing and consistency matter. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of Aaron D., 269 Neb. 249 (distinguishing limited-record termination precedent)
- In re Interest of Isabel P. et al., 293 Neb. 62 (best-interests presumption and parental fitness standard)
- In re Interest of Kassara M., 258 Neb. 90 (late compliance does not bar termination)
- In re Interest of Nicole M., 287 Neb. 685 (children should not be suspended in foster care awaiting parental maturity)
- In re Interest of Alan L., ^882 N.W.2d 682 (appellate standard of de novo review in juvenile cases)