Inre Interest of Trip B.
A-16-903
| Neb. Ct. App. | May 16, 2017Background
- Trip B. was removed from Kristopher B.’s care in June 2014 and placed in DHHS foster care due to parental drug use, incarceration for methamphetamine possession, and inadequate care.
- Juvenile court ordered Kristopher to complete substance-abuse treatment, submit to random urinalysis, maintain housing and income, and accept supervised visitation; Kristopher admitted incarceration and risk to the child.
- Over the case period Kristopher missed urinalyses and visits, had positive tests for methamphetamine and alcohol, failed two treatment programs, later began outpatient treatment but remained inconsistent, and could not verify stable employment.
- Trip remained in out-of-home placement for at least 26 months by the termination hearing; the State moved to terminate Kristopher’s parental rights under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292(2), (6), and (7).
- The juvenile court found the State proved statutory grounds (including the 15-of-22-months placement ground) by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in Trip’s best interests; court terminated Kristopher’s parental rights.
- On appeal Kristopher’s brief failed to comply with rule formatting; the Court of Appeals reviewed for plain error and affirmed the termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Kristopher) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate brief noncompliance required different review | Procedural noncompliance does not preclude review; court may review for plain error | Briefing defects exist but appeal still merits review | Court proceeded under plain-error standard and reviewed the merits |
| Whether statutory ground § 43‑292(7) (15+ months out-of-home) was met | Trip had been in out-of-home care at least 19–26 months, satisfying § 43‑292(7) | Challenged sufficiency indirectly | Held: State proved this ground by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether other statutory grounds (§ 43‑292(2) and (6)) supported termination | Kristopher substantially neglected and failed to correct conditions despite services | Argued progress and parent–child relationship warrant denial | Court did not need to resolve these because (7) sufficed, but evidence supported them if considered |
| Whether termination was in child’s best interests / parental fitness | Kristopher’s ongoing substance abuse, noncompliance, unstable housing/employment, and inability to progress beyond supervised visitation made him unfit and termination necessary for Trip’s safety/stability | Argued parental relationship and interest in reunification; contested weight of evidence | Held: Termination is in Trip’s best interests; Kristopher found unfit (clear and convincing evidence) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of Samantha L. & Jasmine L., 286 Neb. 778 (discussing briefing requirements and appellate procedure)
- In re Interest of Jamyia M., 281 Neb. 964 (same: assignments of error rule enforcement)
- In re Interest of Jagger L., 270 Neb. 828 (if one statutory ground supports termination, appellate court need not address others)
- In re Interest of Isabel P. et al., 293 Neb. 62 (parental fitness and presumption favoring parent–child relationship)
- In re Interest of Aaron D., 269 Neb. 249 (best-interests primary consideration in termination proceedings)
- In re Interest of Sir Messiah T. et al., 279 Neb. 900 (court must review evidence of parent’s current circumstances for best-interests determination)
- In re Interest of Eden K. & Allison L., 14 Neb. App. 867 (a child should not remain indefinitely in foster care awaiting uncertain parental maturity)