In re Interest of Taeson D., 305 Neb. 279

Taeson born July 2017; DHHS took custody at birth due to mother’s methamphetamine use and placed the child with Samuel’s adult daughter (Lachrisha); mother relinquished rights in late 2018.
Samuel was biologically identified as father in June 2018 but had been incarcerated since November 2017 and later transferred to federal prison in South Carolina to serve a 30-year sentence.
DHHS made repeated but largely unsuccessful efforts to contact Samuel; he communicated briefly in mid- and late-2018, initially supported placement with Lachrisha, later objected to termination and said he hoped to win a criminal appeal and parent the child.
State moved to terminate parental rights under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292 (subsections (2), (6), and (7)); Samuel was served in prison, denied the allegations, and retained counsel but did not appear in person or by telephone at the termination hearing.
At the March 13, 2019 hearing Samuel’s counsel cross-examined witnesses but presented no evidence; the juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence supporting neglect (§ 43-292(2)), failed reunification (§ 43-292(6)), 15+ months out-of-home (§ 43-292(7)), unfitness, and best interests for termination, and terminated Samuel’s parental rights.
Samuel appealed alleging denial of procedural due process (no telephonic/video participation) and insufficient reasonable efforts by DHHS; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Samuel denied procedural due process by not appearing (physically, telephonically, or by video)?	Samuel: absence denied meaningful participation; requested telephonic/video hearing.	State: Samuel had notice, denied allegations, was represented by counsel who participated, made no request to appear and effectively waived attendance.	Court: No due process violation; physical presence not required; parent or counsel must notify/request attendance; court has discretion on participation.
Were DHHS’s efforts and the statutory bases sufficient to support termination (esp. § 43-292(6))?	Samuel: State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify under § 43-292(6).	State: Independent statutory grounds (§ 43-292(2) neglect and § 43-292(7) 15+ months out-of-home) were proven and termination served child’s best interests.	Court: Affirmed termination based on § 43-292(2) and (7); only one statutory ground plus best interests required, so no need to find failure of reunification under § 43-292(6).

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (due process requires opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner)
In re Interest of L.V., 240 Neb. 404 (1992) (factors for permitting incarcerated parent’s attendance at termination hearing)
In re Interest of Mainor T. & Estela T., 267 Neb. 232 (2004) (incarcerated parent need not be physically present if afforded procedural due process; parent/attorney must notify court)
In re Interest of Zoie H., 304 Neb. 868 (2020) (juvenile cases reviewed de novo on the record)
In re Interest of Sir Messiah T. et al., 279 Neb. 900 (2010) (one statutory ground suffices for termination when in child’s best interests)
In re Interest of Davonest D. et al., 19 Neb. App. 543 (2012) (due process violated where incarcerated parent was neither present nor represented)