SUMMARY: It was not plain error for the court to change the permanency goals from reunification and in finding that reasonable efforts were no longer required because the parents showed continued disregard in complying with the case plans and the children had been out of home 28 months.
Jasmine L. and Samantha L. were removed from the home of their parents, Kelly and William, on October 12, 2010, due to the parents’ engagement in domestic violence in their presence. On January 5, 2011, the parents admitted to the allegations and were ordered to do a variety of things, including maintaining housing, maintaining employment, abstaining from alcohol and drugs, submitting to random drug testing and participating in therapy. The case was appealed in 2012 after the court assessed fees against DHHS for not submitting timely case plans to the parties. After appeal, the parties stipulated to toll the 15 of 22 month clock from February 2011 to February 2012 and the stipulation was approved by the court. A permanency hearing was held on February 11, 2013. The children had been out of home 28 months and the primary plan was reunification. Several reports were submitted that established Kelly and William were showing a continued disregard in complying with the case plan. William was terminated from employment, the parents had been evicted from their homes, they failed to submit to drug testing or participate in therapy and William had been discharged from his domestic violence program for failure to attend. After the Permanency Hearing, the court found that no further reasonable efforts were required, that the primary permanency objective for Jasmine was to be independent living, and the primary permanency objective for Samantha was to be guardianship with a concurrent plan of adoption. William appealed and Kelly cross-appealed.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the court’s order under a plain error analysis. It noted William’s and Kelly’s failure to participate in services, including therapy, couples counseling, AA meetings, and drug testing, and the agreement by DHHS, the GAL and the Foster Care Review Office that the parents failed to utilize services, and concluded that the court did not commit plain error when finding reasonable efforts were no longer required. As to the change in the permanency objectives, the Court of Appeals likewise noted the parents’ failure to progress toward reunification and the parties’ agreement in permanency objective changes and concluded it was not error to change the permanency objective from reunification to independent living for Jasmine and guardianship/adoption for Samantha.