In re Interest of Mateo L.
309 Neb. 565
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Juana L., an immigrant from Guatemala, had three children who were adjudicated neglected after one proven instance where she left two young children home alone; legal custody was transferred to DHHS.
- Juana fled an abusive partner, relocated to Minnesota, used false identification to obtain work, and was arrested; the children were placed in foster care and remained out of the home during her ~21 months of incarceration/detention.
- During detention Juana had limited in-person contact with her children (only three in-person visits) and mostly phone contact; foster placement was with Spanish‑speaking foster parents who ceased using Spanish, and the children lost much of their native-language ability.
- The State petitioned to terminate Juana’s parental rights under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43‑292 subsections (2), (3), (6), and (7); the juvenile court denied termination and ordered renewed reunification efforts.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: it held the State proved the mechanical § 43‑292(7) ground (15 of 22 months in out‑of‑home placement) but concluded termination was not in the children’s best interests because Juana was not shown to be unfit and had made rehabilitative progress; a concurrence criticized DHHS for failing to provide reasonable reunification efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Juana) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 43‑292(7) (15 of 22 months out‑of‑home) is satisfied | 15+ months in foster care triggers termination mechanically | Time in placement resulted from efforts to escape abuse and detention, so termination inappropriate | Court: §43‑292(7) satisfied (mechanical formula met) |
| Whether incarceration or lack of reunification efforts excuses § 43‑292(7) | Juvenile court erred to treat incarceration or alleged lack of efforts as exceptions to §43‑292(7) | Argued juvenile court properly considered context and DHHS failures | Court: no statutory exceptions; incarceration not sole factual basis; §43‑292.02(3)(c) does not bar filing under §43‑292(7) |
| Whether termination is in children's best interests | Children benefitted from foster care and stability; prolonged placement supports termination | Juana credible, made progress, now legally authorized to remain/work, maintained interest in reunification | Court: termination not in children’s best interests; State failed to prove parental unfitness |
| Whether DHHS made required reasonable efforts to reunify (§43‑292(6)/§43‑283.01) | DHHS provided reasonable services during case | DHHS failed to facilitate relative placement, preserve language/culture, and enable meaningful contact | Court (majority): not necessary to decide for outcome but concurrence: DHHS did not provide reasonable efforts and should have done more |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of Prince R., 308 Neb. 415, 954 N.W.2d 294 (Neb. 2021) (de novo appellate review of juvenile cases; give weight to factfinder credibility findings)
- In re Interest of Leyton C. & Landyn C., 307 Neb. 529, 949 N.W.2d 773 (Neb. 2020) (statutory grounds and burden for termination under §43‑292)
- In re Interest of Aaron D., 269 Neb. 249, 691 N.W.2d 164 (Neb. 2005) (§43‑292(7) operates mechanically; 15/22 months is a guideline)
- In re Interest of Alec S., 294 Neb. 784, 884 N.W.2d 701 (Neb. 2016) (circumstances where termination on time‑in‑care ground may be inappropriate if reunification efforts ongoing)
- In re Interest of Angelica L. & Daniel L., 277 Neb. 984, 767 N.W.2d 74 (Neb. 2009) (immigrant parent’s arrests and mistakes did not alone establish parental unfitness)
- In re Adoption of Micah H., 301 Neb. 437, 918 N.W.2d 834 (Neb. 2018) (limits on relying on incarceration as sole factual basis for termination)
- Kenneth C. v. Lacie H., 286 Neb. 799, 839 N.W.2d 305 (Neb. 2013) (best‑interests analysis focuses on child’s future well‑being)
- In re Interest of Xavier H., 274 Neb. 331, 740 N.W.2d 13 (Neb. 2007) (constitutional protection of parental rights; state must show unfitness)
- In re Interest of Karlie D., 283 Neb. 581, 811 N.W.2d 214 (Neb. 2012) (priority for relative placement and placement considerations)
- In re Interest of Mainor T. & Estela T., 267 Neb. 232, 674 N.W.2d 442 (Neb. 2004) (§43‑292(7) as timetable for parental rehabilitation)