927 N.W.2d 67
Neb. Ct. App.2019Background
- Mother Candice I. has two sons: Donald (b. July 2003) and Devin (b. October 2004). The State filed a third petition to terminate her parental rights as to both children on January 11, 2018.
- At the June 8, 2018 hearing, Candice agreed to admit certain allegations as to Devin in exchange for the State dismissing remaining allegations and removing Donald from the petition; the admission was to be treated as a voluntary relinquishment as to Devin.
- Candice admitted counts I, II, IV, IX, and X of the petition (including abandonment for 6+ months and that termination was in Devin’s best interests); the court was presented a factual basis showing ~2 years of no contact with Devin and failure to engage in reunification services.
- The juvenile court found Candice’s admission knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made, found a factual basis for the admission, and terminated her parental rights as to Devin; Donald’s case plan retained reunification concurrent with guardianship.
- Candice appealed, arguing (1) the court had no authority to accept her admission as a voluntary termination of parental rights as to Devin, and (2) the court erred by terminating rights as to one child but not the other.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Candice) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court could accept Candice’s in-court admission as a voluntary termination of parental rights for Devin | Court lacked authority under Nebraska law to accept her relinquishment as termination | Juvenile courts may accept in-court admissions under § 43-279.01(3) if a factual basis exists; the parties negotiated a voluntary relinquishment | Court affirmed: admission properly accepted; factual basis existed and admission was knowing and voluntary |
| Whether termination as to Devin but not Donald was improper (must terminate as to all children or none) | You cannot terminate parental rights as to one child and not the other | Termination may differ among siblings depending on facts; here Candice admitted facts specific to Devin and maintained progress/contacts with Donald | Court affirmed: permissible to terminate as to one child based on agreement and disparate factual circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of Gabriela H., 280 Neb. 284, 785 N.W.2d 843 (juvenile court authority to order Department to accept voluntary relinquishment when child adjudicated and adoption is permanency objective)
- In re Interest of Cornelius K., 280 Neb. 291, 785 N.W.2d 849 (acceptance of relinquishment before adjudication/permanency plan was procedural error)
- In re Interest of Zanaya W., 291 Neb. 20, 863 N.W.2d 803 (court may accept parent’s in-court admission under § 43-279.01(3))
- In re Interest of Nicole M., 287 Neb. 685, 844 N.W.2d 65 (State must prove statutory grounds and best interests by clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights)
- In re Interest of Xavier H., 274 Neb. 331, 740 N.W.2d 13 (reversal where State sought termination for youngest child but not adjudicate/seek termination for older siblings and positions were inconsistent)
- In re Interest of Justin H. et al., 18 Neb. App. 718, 791 N.W.2d 765 (termination of parental rights may be appropriate as to some children but not others based on disparate facts)
- In re Interest of Noah B. et al., 295 Neb. 764, 891 N.W.2d 109 (juvenile appeals reviewed de novo)