In re Interest of Joseph S., 288 Neb. 463

State appealed an order from the separate juvenile court of Douglas County denying termination of Kerri S.'s parental rights under Neb. Rev. Stat. §43-292(2).
Three minor children (Joseph S., William S., Steven S.) were the subject; DHHS had prior involvement beginning in 2009 and again in 2012 with NFC overseeing voluntary services.
Amended petition (Dec. 19, 2012) sought termination based on substantial and continuous neglect; adjudication hearing occurred March 13, 2013; court dismissed termination counts III–IV.
Court found adequate due process but concluded the State failed to present a prima facie case for termination; children remained in DHHS custody.
Court of Appeals reversed, State sought review; this Court reverses the Court of Appeals and remands for further proceedings consistent with due-process and evidentiary standards.
Record shows Kerri’s participation in voluntary services was voluntary, not coerced, and prior DHHS history was relevant to the case; a prima facie case under §43-292(2) was found on remand, with consideration of all evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether due process was satisfied in termination proceeding	State argues due process requirements were met.	Kerri contends due process protections were violated by coercive or insufficient process.	Due process satisfied; no reversible due process violation.
Whether clear and convincing evidence supports termination and best interests	State contends record shows clear and convincing evidence and termination is in children's best interests.	Kerri contends there is insufficient evidence and/or best interests not shown.	Remanded to determine if clear and convincing evidence supports termination and is in best interests.
Whether noncompliance with voluntary services can support §43-292(2) termination	State maintains lack of compliance with voluntary services is relevant to termination under §43-292(2).	Kerri argues voluntary-service noncompliance should not be used to terminate.	Evidence of voluntary-service noncompliance considered; not dispositive without prima facie showing.
Whether the State could rely on prior DHHS history and voluntary-service records	State argues prior DHHS history and voluntary-service records are admissible and probative.	Kerri argues about potential prejudice or improper reliance on prior voluntary-phase records.	Record supports consideration; remand to evaluate all evidence under the correct standard.

In re Interest of L.V., 240 Neb. 404 (1992) (due process requires notice, opportunity to defend, confrontation, counsel, and impartial hearing)
In re Interest of Kantril P. & Chenelle P., 257 Neb. 450 (1999) (recognizes non-exhaustive due-process requirements in termination contexts)
Croft v. Westmoreland County Children and Youth, 103 F.3d 1123 (3d Cir. 1997) (no coercive ultimatum; due process concerns must be evaluated carefully)
Starkey v. York County, 2012 WL 9509712 (M.D. Pa. 2012) (discusses due process issues in state-investigation contexts; distinguishable from voluntary-services case)
Dupuy v. Samuels, 465 F.3d 757 (7th Cir. 2006) (concerning coercive threats and parental consent; persuasive authority for coercion analysis)