In re Interest of Hindryk B., A-16-553

Child Hindryk (b. 2008) was removed from mother Cherri's care on Oct. 8, 2014 after law enforcement found drugs and weapons at a residence where they had been staying; Hindryk’s hair test showed methamphetamine/amphetamine exposure.
DHHS case plans (Feb. 2015 onward) required Cherri to address substance abuse (random drug testing, treatment), obtain psychological evaluation and mental-health treatment, and participate in parenting education and supervised visitation.
Cherri pled no contest in April 2015 to amended misdemeanor charges (attempted possession of methamphetamine and child abuse) and was placed on probation; she repeatedly tested positive for methamphetamine/amphetamines (including within weeks of the termination hearing) and inconsistently attended visits and services.
Child remained in out-of-home placement continuously from Oct. 8, 2014; the State moved to terminate parental rights under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292 subsections (2), (4), (6), and (7); termination hearing occurred Mar.–Apr. 2016.
The juvenile court found statutory grounds including § 43-292(7) (15+ of most recent 22 months in out-of-home placement), parental unfitness from habitual narcotics use, failed reunification efforts, and that termination was in the child’s best interests.
On de novo review, the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding § 43-292(7) provided an adequate ground and the State showed the parent was unfit and termination was in the child’s best interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Cherri)	Held
Whether statutory grounds exist to terminate parental rights	Grounds exist under § 43-292(2), (4), (6), and (7) based on neglect, habitual drug use, failed reunification, and prolonged out-of-home placement	Cherri challenged the findings under § 43-292(2) and (6) (arguing insufficient proof)	Court affirmed termination based on § 43-292(7) (child 15+ of most recent 22 months in out-of-home placement); no need to resolve (2) or (6) when one statutory ground suffices
Whether termination is in the child’s best interests and parent is unfit	Termination is in child’s best interests because Cherri’s ongoing substance use, inconsistent visitation, minimal progress in services, and mental-health noncompliance render her unfit and create ongoing harm/uncertainty for the child	Cherri asserted progress, compliance with some services, love for the child, and disputed some testing procedures; asked for more time	Court held the State rebutted the presumption of parental fitness; clear and convincing evidence showed unfitness and that termination served the child’s best interests (need for permanency)

In re Interest of Isabel P., 293 Neb. 62 (2016) (standard for de novo review in juvenile cases)
In re Interest of Elizabeth S., 282 Neb. 1015 (2011) (any single § 43-292 ground may support termination if best interests met)
In re Interest of Nicole M., 287 Neb. 685 (2014) (parental fitness concept and presumption favoring parental relationship)
In re Interest of Alec S., 294 Neb. 784 (2016) (parental bond alone does not establish fitness)
In re Interest of Ryder J., 283 Neb. 318 (2012) (State must show termination is in child’s best interests after proving statutory grounds)
In re Interest of Walter W., 274 Neb. 859 (2008) (children should not be left in foster care awaiting uncertain parental rehabilitation)