922 N.W.2d 240
Neb. Ct. App.2018Background
- Amanda T. is mother to Brooklyn (b. 2016) and Charlotte (b. 2018); Daniel T.'s rights were terminated earlier and he is not part of this appeal.
- Brooklyn was removed in July 2017 after allegations of Amanda's drug use and failure to provide care; Amanda admitted allegations under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) and was ordered to complete services.
- The State later sought termination of Amanda's parental rights to both children under § 43-292(2) (substantial, continuous, or repeated neglect) and § 43-292(6); Amanda admitted the § 43-292(2) grounds and that termination was in the children’s best interests.
- The State proffered a factual basis including Amanda’s failure to complete court-ordered services, lack of stable housing and legal income, an extensive DHHS history (including prior relinquishment of a child), and that Charlotte tested positive for amphetamine at birth.
- The juvenile court accepted Amanda’s admissions, found a factual basis, and terminated her parental rights to both children; Amanda appealed, arguing the State failed to prove best interests by clear and convincing evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State provided a sufficient factual basis to support termination under § 43-292(2) | State: factual basis from admissions and affidavits (drug use, failure to complete services, positive drug test at birth) supports § 43-292(2) | Amanda: did not contest statutory-ground factual basis on appeal | Court: factual basis sufficient to support § 43-292(2) termination |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interests and proven by clear and convincing evidence | State: affidavit and proffered testimony show ongoing drug use, disengagement from services, and risk to children; termination is in best interests | Amanda: argued State did not prove best interests by clear and convincing evidence and that relationship with mother favors preservation | Court: because Amanda admitted best-interests allegation, State only needed to proffer sufficient factual basis; proffer was sufficient and termination was in children’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of Noah B. et al., 295 Neb. 764, 891 N.W.2d 109 (de novo review standard for juvenile appeals)
- In re Interest of Hope L. et al., 278 Neb. 869, 775 N.W.2d 384 (statutory burden for termination: must prove grounds and best interests)
- In re Interest of Zanaya W. et al., 291 Neb. 20, 863 N.W.2d 803 (court may accept in-court admissions; when parent admits, State need not independently prove allegations but must provide factual basis)
- In re Interest of Walter W., 274 Neb. 859, 744 N.W.2d 55 (parental drug exposure is detrimental to children's best interests)
- In re Interest of Giavonna G., 23 Neb. App. 853, 876 N.W.2d 422 (children should not be left in foster care awaiting uncertain parental rehabilitation)