IN RE INTEREST OF BROOKLYN T. AND CHARLOTTE T., CHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE. STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE, V. AMANDA T., APPELLANT.
No. A-18-518
Nebraska Court of Appeals
December 11, 2018
26 Neb. App. 669
MOORE, Chief Judge, and RIEDMANN and WELCH, Judges.
Appeal from the Separate Juvenile Court of Douglas County: CHRISTOPHER E. KELLY, Judge. Affirmed.
IN RE INTEREST OF BROOKLYN T. AND CHARLOTTE T.,
CHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE.
STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE, V.
AMANDA T., APPELLANT.
N.W.2d ___
Filed December 11, 2018. No. A-18-518.
-
Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on the record and reaches a conclusion independently of the juvenile court‘s findings. - Parental Rights: Proof. Under
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292 (Reissue 2016) , in order to terminate parental rights, the State must prove, by clеar and convincing evidence, that one or more of the statutory grounds listed in this section have been satisfied and that termination is in the child‘s best interests. - _____: _____. When a parent admits to the State‘s allegations regarding the statutory ground for termination of parental rights and that termination is in the children‘s best interests, the State does not have to prove those allegations by clear and convincing evidence.
- Parental Rights. Children cannot, and should not, be suspended in foster care or be made to await uncertain parental maturity.
- _____. Where a parent is unable or unwilling to rehabilitate himself or herself within a rеasonable time, the best interests of the child require termination of the parental rights.
Appeal from the Separate Juvenile Court of Douglas County: CHRISTOPHER E. KELLY, Judge. Affirmed.
Thomas C. Riley, Douglas County Public Defender, and Katie L. Jadlowski for appellant.
Donald W. Kleine, Douglas County Attorney, and Natalie Killion for appellee.
MOORE, Chief Judge, and RIEDMANN and WELCH, Judges.
RIEDMANN, Judge.
INTRODUCTION
Amanda T. appeals from the decision of the separate juvenile court of Douglas County terminating her parental rights to her minor children, Brooklyn T. and Charlotte T. Following our de novo review of the record, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Amanda is the mother of Brooklyn, born in September 2016, and Charlotte, born in February 2018. Daniel T. is the father to both children. His parental rights to the children were terminated prior to Amanda‘s, and he is not a part of this appeal.
In July 2017, the State filed a petition alleging that Brooklyn came within the meaning of
The State subsequently filed an amended petition and termination of parental
The juvenile court held an adjudication hearing on the State‘s amended petition in October 2017. At the adjudication hearing, Amanda admitted the allegations contained in count I of the amended petition and the State withdrew counts II and III, including its motion for termination of Amanda‘s parental rights. The court acceptеd Amanda‘s plea and adjudicated Brooklyn under
In February 2018, the State filed a motion for termination of parental rights (motion for termination) against Amandа. The State moved for termination under
As a part of its second supplemental petition, the State produced an affidavit from Ally Chavis, a family permanency specialist, who stated that when Amanda was admitted to the hospitаl to give birth to Charlotte, Amanda tested positive for amphetamine. Chavis additionally stated that Amanda had been disengaged with services after Brooklyn‘s removal in July 2017. Finally, Chavis indicated that Amanda had an extensive history with DHHS, including previously voluntarily relinquishing custody to her oldest daughter. The State also filed a motion for immediate custody of Charlotte, which was granted by the court.
A hearing was held on the State‘s motion to terminate Amanda‘s parental rights. At the hearing, Amanda pled to various portions of the motion for termination and the second supplemental petition. Regarding the motion for tеrmination, Amanda admitted count I, that Brooklyn came under
After ascertaining that Amanda‘s admissions were freely and voluntarily given, the juvenile court asked the State to provide a factual basis. The State offered exhibit 11, which contained all pleadings filed up to that point and Chavis’ affidavit. The State then relayed that Brooklyn was removed from Amanda‘s home in July 2017 and was adjudicated in October. The State informed the court that Amanda was to engage in certain court-ordered services to rectify her parenting issues, which she failed to successfully complete or follow through with, including: chemical and psychological evaluations, family support work, and maintain housing and a legal source of income. The State also indicated that its evidence would show that Amanda had not rectified her drug use at the time Charlotte was born. Finally, the State indicated that Chavis would testify that it was in the children‘s best interests to terminate Amanda‘s parental rights. Specifically, the State informed the court:
[T]he concern for . . . Charlotte . . . is despite the fact that services had been offered to . . . Amanda . . . in regards to her sister, [Brooklyn‘s] case, that the services had yet to rectify the situation that brought Brooklyn into care, to include allegatiоns of possible drug use and not providing for the minor child.
[Chavis] would testify that due to that history and the services that have been offered to [Amanda], both for Brooklyn and . . . Charlotte . . . , she would testify that it is in the best interest of Brooklyn and . . . Charlotte . . . to terminate [Amanda‘s] parental rights.
The juvenile court accepted Amanda‘s admissions and found a factual basis for the respective pleas. The court additionally stated, “The parties have agreed and the Court will adopt their recommendation that this be found to be a voluntary termination of parental rights on the part of the mother.” Thus, the juvenile сourt terminated Amanda‘s parental rights to both Brooklyn and Charlotte. Amanda timely appealed.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Amanda assigns that the juvenile court erred in terminating her parental rights because the State failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the children‘s best interests.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1] An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on the record and reaches a conclusion independently of the juvenile court‘s findings. In re Interest of Noah B. et al., 295 Neb. 764, 891 N.W.2d 109 (2017).
ANALYSIS
[2] Under
[3] Because Amanda admitted to the State‘s allegations regarding the statutory ground for termination and that termination was in the children‘s best interests, the State did not have to prove those allegations by clear and convincing evidence. See In re Interest of Zanaya W. et al., supra (determining that when parent admits bases for termination, State need not independеntly prove them by clear and convincing evidence). However, the State was required to put forth a factual basis for the allegations contained in the motion for termination and the second supplemental petition. See id. We therefore review the factual basis provided by thе State.
Statutory Grounds for Termination.
Amanda does not assign as error the factual basis for the statutory grounds upon which termination was based, but because our review is de novo, we have reviewed the factual basis supporting termination under
Subsection (2) of
The State‘s factual basis showed that Amanda‘s drug use prevented her from providing adequate parental care to Brooklyn and led to the removal of both Brooklyn and Charlotte from Amanda‘s home. Further, the State dеmonstrated that Amanda had not adequately addressed her drug use at the time of the hearing. Therefore, we find the State‘s factual basis sufficient to show that Amanda substantially and continuously or repeatedly neglected to give Brooklyn and Charlotte necessary parental protectiоn and care.
Best Interests.
We next examine the State‘s factual basis to support the allegations that it is in the children‘s best interests to terminate Amanda‘s parental rights. Although Amanda argues that the State did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination of her parental rights was in the children‘s best interests, as stated above, due to Amanda‘s admission, the State does not have to prove this by clear and convincing evidence. See In re Interest of Zanaya W. et al., 291 Neb. 20, 863 N.W.2d 803 (2015). The State must only present a sufficient factual basis to support its allegations. Id. We determine it to be sufficient.
The factual basis provided by the State was that Chavis would testify that, duе to Amanda‘s history with DHHS and the services that were offered to Amanda which were not utilized, it would be in the children‘s best interests to terminate Amanda‘s parental rights. Additionally, exhibit 11, which was offered by the State and received by the court, contains Chavis’ affidavit indicating that Amanda has
The State‘s factual basis is sufficient to support a finding that it is in the children‘s best interests to terminate Amanda‘s parental rights. The State‘s evidence would show that Amanda has struggled with drug use throughout the case and that she was using methamphetamine while pregnant with Charlotte. It is detrimental to the children‘s best interests to grow up in a home where they would be exposed to drugs. See In re Interest of Walter W., 274 Neb. 859, 744 N.W.2d 55 (2008).
Further, the State‘s evidence would show that Amanda was not able to complete agency supervised visitations with Brooklyn while she was in the custody of the State. Chavis stated in her affidavit that Amanda was “disengaged” with the services offered by DHHS. Although Amanda argues that it is in the children‘s best interests to have a relationship with her, the State‘s factual basis indicates that Amanda has not demonstrated any willingness to develоp a healthy relationship with the children.
[4,5] Amanda has a long history with DHHS, and despite the services being offered to her, she has not addressed the concerns that initially led the State to remove Brooklyn from her care—primarily, her drug use. Although the children are still very young, the record does not indicаte any likelihood that Amanda‘s behavior will change. Nebraska courts have recognized that children cannot, and should not, be suspended in foster care or be made to await uncertain parental maturity. In re Interest of Giavonna G., 23 Neb. App. 853, 876 N.W.2d 422 (2016). Where a parent is unable or unwilling to rehabilitate himself or herself within a reasоnable time, the best interests of the child require termination of the parental rights. In re Interest of Zanaya W. et al., supra.
Based upon our de novo review of the record, we conclude that the State presented a sufficient factual basis to support a finding that it was in the children‘s best interests to terminate Amanda‘s parental rights. This аssigned error is without merit.
CONCLUSION
The State presented a sufficient factual basis to establish that terminating Amanda‘s parental rights to Brooklyn and Charlotte was appropriate under
AFFIRMED.