846 N.W.2d 686
Neb. Ct. App.2014Background
- Carlos and Jennifer H. are parents of four children, Skylar (2004), Ashton (2005), Taylor (2009), and Jordana (2011); the state sought to terminate their parental rights.
- In October 2011, DHHS received abuse concerns about Ashton; Ashton was found with serious injuries and Skylar and Taylor disclosed past abuse.
- Ashton and Skylar were removed from the home; Jordana, born December 2011, was removed at birth; Carlos and Jennifer provided inconsistent explanations for injuries.
- Multiple medical and mental health professionals diagnosed Ashton with psychosocial dwarfism related to chronic abuse/neglect; his environment improved after placement in foster care.
- A 2012 termination hearing spanned seven days; the juvenile court terminated Carlos’s and Jennifer’s parental rights to all four children, finding clear and convincing evidence of abuse/neglect and that termination was in the children's best interests.
- Carlos appealed arguing lack of jurisdiction, mootness of § 43-247(3)(a) allegations, improper expert testimony, and insufficiency of evidence; the appellate court upheld termination and rejected his arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the juvenile court acquire jurisdiction over Jordana? | Carlos: no prior adjudication; Jordana not properly subject to original action. | State: jurisdiction exists via motion to terminate without prior adjudication. | Jurisdiction proper via motion to terminate without prior adjudication. |
| Are § 43-247(3)(a) allegations moot after termination? | Carlos: § 43-247(3)(a) must be addressed before termination. | State: no adjudication required when terminating under § 43-292(2)/(9). | Allegations moot when termination granted; no prior adjudication required. |
| Did the court err in admitting expert testimony on psychosocial dwarfism without a Daubert/Schafersman hearing? | Carlos: require Daubert/Schafersman hearing for expert evidence. | State: termination hearings are not bound by Daubert/Schafersman; due process sufficed. | Due process satisfied; Daubert/Schafersman standards do not apply to termination hearings. |
| Was Dr. Buehler's psychosocial dwarfism diagnosis supported by substantial evidence? | Buehler's diagnosis is post hoc and unreliable. | Other physicians corroborated; evidence sufficient beyond Buehler. | No reversible error; other testimony supported the diagnosis; evidence sufficient. |
| Was there clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the children's best interests? | Termination is in the best interests given abuse, neglect, and stability concerns. | Carlos: best interests not proven; potential for reunification should be explored. | Termination in the children's best interests, supported by extensive expert and lay testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of Joshua M. et al., 256 Neb. 596 (1999) (grounds for termination without prior adjudication; due process safeguards)
- In re Interest of Rebecka P., 266 Neb. 869 (2003) (due process in termination proceedings; admissibility of evidence)
- In re Interest of Angelina G. et al., 20 Neb. App. 646 (2013) (termination when grounds prove best interests; appellate review of best interests)
- In re Interest of Brook P. et al., 10 Neb. App. 577 (2001) (rights advisement sufficiency; due process at termination hearings)
- In re Interest of Sir Messiah T. et al., 279 Neb. 900 (2010) (two-element framework for termination: statutory grounds and best interests)
- In re Interest of N.M. and J.M., 240 Neb. 690 (1992) (right to appointed counsel; juvenile due process framework)
- In re Interest of N.L.B., 234 Neb. 280 (1990) (clear procedure for handling errors in juvenile appeals)