In re Interest of Angeleah M. & Ava M.
A-16-189
| Neb. Ct. App. | Oct 11, 2016Background
- Father D’Angelo E. appealed termination of his parental rights to daughters Angeleah (b.2008) and Ava (b.2009); children were in DHHS custody since April 2013 and in foster care continuously through the termination hearing.
- This litigation had prior appeals: initial termination reversed on appeal in 2014, disposition order (Sept. 2014) was later affirmed, and visitation suspension appeal dismissed; the present termination motion filed Oct. 8, 2015.
- DHHS caseworker documented repeated efforts to engage D’Angelo in services; he intermittently complied (assessments, some classes, brief therapy) but routinely refused or delayed recommended treatment, withheld contact information, limited contact with the caseworker, and resisted medication recommended by providers.
- Mental health evaluators diagnosed bipolar disorder with severe manic features and personality disorders; evaluators recommended psychotherapy plus medication, and two providers opined medication likely necessary for safe parenting.
- Therapeutic visits with the girls (Sept. 2014–Feb. 2015) correlated with regression in the children’s behavior; behaviors improved after visits were suspended. Experts concluded the children needed permanence and that placement with D’Angelo was inappropriate given his incomplete treatment and ongoing contact with the children’s mother (who had relinquished rights).
- The juvenile court found statutory grounds under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43‑292(7) (15 of most recent 22 months in out‑of‑home placement) and also § 43‑292(2) and (6); it concluded termination was in the children’s best interests. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | D’Angelo's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for termination exist under § 43‑292(7) (15+ of most recent 22 months in out‑of‑home placement) | Children were in continuous out‑of‑home placement since April 2013, exceeding the statutory timeframe | Argued he had limited opportunity to reunify due to pendency of appeals and that he was making efforts | Held: § 43‑292(7) established as mechanical statutory ground; children had been in placement >15 months and ground proven |
| Whether termination is in children’s best interests and parent is unfit (constitutional fitness inquiry) | D’Angelo refused or delayed required services, withheld contact info, failed to follow treatment recommendations (notably medication), had inconsistent contact with mother who relinquished rights, and children regressed during visits; thus termination serves children’s need for permanence | D’Angelo claimed he sought to cooperate, had limited opportunity while appeals were pending, had recent therapy sessions, and was willing to try medication and counseling | Held: State rebutted presumption of parental fitness; substantial evidence showed D’Angelo was unwilling/unable to complete necessary rehabilitation in a reasonable time and termination was in children’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of Isabel P., 293 Neb. 62, 875 N.W.2d 848 (2016) (standard of appellate review in juvenile cases is de novo)
- In re Interest of Elizabeth S., 282 Neb. 1015, 809 N.W.2d 495 (2012) (any single § 43‑292 ground supports termination when best interests shown)
- In re Interest of Aaron D., 269 Neb. 249, 691 N.W.2d 164 (2005) (§ 43‑292(7) operates mechanically and does not require proof of parental fault)
- In re Interest of Nicole M., 287 Neb. 685, 844 N.W.2d 65 (2014) (parental right is constitutionally protected; State must show parent unfit)
- In re Interest of Ryder J., 283 Neb. 318, 809 N.W.2d 255 (2012) (best‑interest inquiry and parental fitness analysis are fact‑intensive and related)
- In re Interest of Walter W., 274 Neb. 859, 744 N.W.2d 55 (2008) (children should not be kept in foster care awaiting uncertain parental rehabilitation)