In re Interest of Nicole M., 287 Neb. 685

Background

Parents Thomas M. (Tom) and Brandy S. had two daughters, Nicole (b. 2004) and Sandra (b. 2006); children removed March 28, 2011 for unsanitary home and other safety concerns.
During foster care, children reported physical and verbal abuse by Brandy (including threats to stab), disclosure of sexual assault by a friend of Brandy’s, and ongoing fear of Brandy; Nicole diagnosed with PTSD and adjustment disorder.
Brandy has a documented mood disorder and borderline intellectual functioning; psychological evaluations warned medication compliance was essential and identified personality traits raising risk for regression. Her therapy attendance was inconsistent and staff questioned her honesty and acceptance of responsibility.
Tom has below‑average/borderline IQ, a history of "victim" behavior, inconsistent parenting, but no evidence he physically harmed the children; he attended counseling and couples therapy and sometimes removed children from conflict.
Over ~22 months the children were in out‑of‑home placement; the State sought termination of parental rights in Jan 2013; after a 5‑day trial the county court terminated both parents’ rights.
On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed termination as to Brandy (fitness, statutory grounds, best interests) but reversed as to Tom (State failed to rebut presumption he was a fit parent).

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Parent's Argument	Held
Whether parental rights may be terminated under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43‑292 based on parental unfitness and statutory grounds	State: Clear and convincing evidence showed Brandy’s mental illness, medication noncompliance, physical/verbal abuse, failure to protect/report sexual assault, and statutory grounds (¶2, ¶5, ¶6, ¶7).	Brandy: Trial court denied due process and should have allowed more time/family therapy to rehabilitate; family therapy would enable reunification.	Affirmed for Brandy: Court found Brandy unfit, best interests favored termination, and statutory grounds proven.
Whether the 15‑of‑22‑months out‑of‑home placement under § 43‑292(7) supports termination	State: Children had been placed out of home >15 of 22 months, supporting termination analysis and showing reasonable time for rehabilitation passed.	Parents: Time guideline alone insufficient; argued more rehabilitative opportunity (esp. family therapy) warranted.	Held: § 43‑292(7) satisfied as factual predicate; but court reiterated the 15/22 rule is only a guideline—State still must prove unfitness and best interests.
Whether family therapy should have been required before termination (due process/rehabilitation)	State/therapists: Family therapy was contraindicated because perpetrators had not accepted responsibility and children were not ready; Brandy’s lack of responsibility caused delay.	Brandy: Family therapy would address issues and she should be given more time to rehabilitate.	Held: Trial court did not err—evidence supported that family therapy was not appropriate and Brandy’s lack of responsibility undermined the request.
Whether termination as to Tom was supported by clear and convincing evidence	State: Tom failed to protect children (did not call authorities or leave Brandy), lived with Brandy despite risk, and exhibited weak boundary/parenting skills.	Tom: He removed children from immediate conflicts, sought counseling, loved children, no evidence he physically harmed them, and with support could parent.	Reversed for Tom: Court held State did not rebut presumption Tom was fit; termination of his rights was erroneous.

Key Cases Cited

In re Interest of Kendra M. et al., 283 Neb. 1014 (discusses parental unfitness standard and burden of proof)
In re Interest of Angelica L. & Daniel L., 277 Neb. 984 (explains State’s clear‑and‑convincing burden and best‑interests analysis)
In re Interest of Xavier H., 274 Neb. 331 (treatment of § 43‑292 grounds and parental fitness)
In re Interest of Walter W., 274 Neb. 859 (children should not be left indefinitely in foster care awaiting uncertain parental maturity)
In re Interest of Aaron D., 269 Neb. 249 (appellate courts may avoid unnecessary rulings and limit analysis to issues required to resolve appeal)