In re Interest of Donald B. & Devin B.
933 N.W.2d 864
Neb.2019Background
- Candice I. is mother of Donald (b.2003) and Devin (b.2004); both children were removed in 2015 and placed in DHHS custody.
- In Jan 2018 the State filed a third petition to terminate Candice’s parental rights; at the hearing Candice admitted counts concerning Devin (including that termination was in Devin’s best interests) as part of a plea agreement; allegations as to Donald were dismissed.
- The juvenile court accepted the admissions, found a factual basis, treated the termination as a "voluntary relinquishment," and terminated Candice’s rights to Devin.
- Later permanency hearing evidence and DHHS reports showed similar, recent reunification progress with both children: therapy with each child beginning Feb 2018, negative drug tests, employment, housing, and DHHS recommending reunification concurrent with adoption for both boys.
- The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed; the Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review, performed a de novo review, and concluded the factual basis was insufficient to support termination as to Devin because the children’s situations were indistinguishable and Candice had made substantial recent progress.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, directed the juvenile court to proceed consistently with its opinion, and cautioned against conflating "voluntary relinquishment" with statutorily authorized termination proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the factual basis supported termination of Candice’s rights to Devin | Admission valid but factual basis insufficient because Candice’s progress with Devin mirrored her progress with Donald | Admissions and State’s factual recitation showed lack of contact and lack of progress justifying termination | Reversed: factual basis insufficient to show termination was in Devin’s best interests |
| Whether the juvenile court could treat the admission as a "voluntary relinquishment" | Court erred by treating a judicial termination admission as a voluntary relinquishment and forcing choice between children | The parties agreed to treat the admission as a relinquishment as part of plea deal | Court held the procedures and effects differ; juvenile court should not conflate relinquishment and termination; cautioned against interchangeable use |
| Whether admissions dispense with State’s burden of proof | Admission is a judicial admission that substitutes for proof of allegations | State argued admission relieved it from proving allegations by clear and convincing evidence | Court confirmed admissions relieve State of proving allegations but still require sufficient factual basis for best interests finding |
| Standard of review on appeal | Candice urged full de novo review of the record | State relied on Court of Appeals’ affirmance | Court applied de novo review and reappraised the entire record independently |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of Xavier H., 274 Neb. 331 (Neb. 2007) (discusses effect of judicial admissions in termination proceedings)
- In re Interest of Zanaya W., 291 Neb. 20 (Neb. 2015) (factual-basis sufficiency may include a mix of past conduct and prospective testimony)
- In re Interest of Brooklyn T. & Charlotte T., 26 Neb. App. 669 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018) (upheld factual-basis sufficiency where additional evidence supported best-interests admission)
- In re Interest of L.B., A.B., & A.T., 235 Neb. 134 (Neb. 1990) (definition and effect of judicial admissions)
- In re Interest of Gabriela H., 280 Neb. 284 (Neb. 2010) (juvenile court is a statutorily created court of limited jurisdiction)
- In re Interest of Donald B. & Devin B., 27 Neb. App. 126 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019) (Court of Appeals’ decision affirming termination that this Court reversed)