In re Interest of Joezia P.
30 Neb. Ct. App. 281
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Jeremy H., father of Joezia (b. 2017), has a history of domestic-assault convictions involving Joezia’s mother; these incidents occurred while the mother was pregnant and while Joezia was present.
- DHHS filed juvenile proceedings in March 2019; Joezia was adjudicated under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) and was placed in foster care in September 2019.
- Court-ordered services were imposed on Jeremy (visitation, support, batterer’s program, counseling, CPP), but Jeremy had intermittent access/participation and was repeatedly incarcerated (including an escape that added 18 months).
- The State moved to terminate Jeremy’s parental rights under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292(2); hearings were delayed/modified due to COVID-19 and facility quarantine issues, and the court used a bifurcated procedure (State’s case first; transcript review and opportunity to present defense later).
- After evidence showed Joezia’s behavioral improvement in a stable foster placement and Jeremy’s continued criminal conduct and incomplete services, the juvenile court terminated Jeremy’s parental rights on neglect grounds and found termination was in the child’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Jeremy's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether overruling motion to transport (deny physical presence) violated due process | Bifurcated hearing, counsel representation, provision to review transcript and consult counsel provided meaningful participation | Physical absence (and telephonic-only access) prevented meaningful participation, inability to see witnesses or real-time counsel communications | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; bifurcated process, transcript review, and counsel sufficed given delay, COVID risks, transport/security concerns |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination under § 43-292(2) (substantially/continuous or repeated neglect) | Jeremy’s repeated incarcerations, voluntary criminal conduct (including escape), failure to complete ordered services showed repeated neglect/unavailability to parent | Jeremy sought services and some failures resulted from COVID/facility limits, not his fault | Court affirmed: clear and convincing evidence of neglect; incarceration plus voluntary criminal acts and failure to remedy supported termination |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interests / presumption of parental fitness rebutted | Need for permanency and Joezia’s progress in stable foster home justified adoption; Jeremy unable to provide support or stability | Jeremy argued willingness to rehabilitate and that service obstacles were partly due to pandemic/facility limitations | Court affirmed: termination in best interests; parental fitness presumption rebutted due to inability/unwillingness to rehabilitate within reasonable time |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of Taeson D., 305 Neb. 279 (Neb. 2020) (gives juvenile courts discretion to determine how an incarcerated parent may meaningfully participate; no rigid telephonic requirement)
- In re Interest of L.V., 240 Neb. 404 (Neb. 1992) (an incarcerated parent need not be physically present; lists factors to consider when deciding presence/participation)
- In re Interest of Kalie W., 258 Neb. 46 (Neb. 1999) (incarceration and the voluntary criminal conduct causing it are relevant to neglect analysis)
- In re Interest of Ryder J., 283 Neb. 318 (Neb. 2012) (parent must rehabilitate within a reasonable time; otherwise child’s best interests may require termination)
- In re Interest of Jahon S., 291 Neb. 97 (Neb. 2015) (a child should not languish in foster care awaiting uncertain parental maturity)
- Fetherkile v. Fetherkile, 299 Neb. 76 (Neb. 2018) (appellate errors must be both assigned and specifically argued)
- In re Interest of Becka P. et al., 27 Neb. App. 489 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019) (appellate review in juvenile cases is de novo but appellate courts may give weight to juvenile court credibility findings)