SUMMARY: Retaining jurisdiction over the children was in their best interests because “the permanency goal ha[d] not been met and the family’s lack of financial stability is directly related to their inability to care for their home and children.” The recommendations of the LB1184 team, which included treatment addressing chronic and severe neglect, a family support worker, identification of community supports, and exploration of long-term services, were properly adopted by the court because they provided “corrective conditions to the family’s underlying problems.”
Nine children were removed from their parent’s home in March 2004 when police officers discovered the family “living in a ‘filthy’ one-bedroom home.” The gas was shut off in April 2003, the house had been without running water since June 2003, there were containers of human waste due to septic problems, and the family had many unlicensed pets. The house was condemned and the children placed in temporary DHHS custody. The parents’ pled admissions to the petition filed in March 2004 alleging that the children fell under §43-247(3)(a).
The matter was brought before the trial court for disposition in March 2004. The trial court determined that it was in the children’s best interests to remain in temporary DHHS custody. With reunification as the permanency objective, the trial court held seven permanency planning hearings between August 2004 and April 2006. Evidence presented at those hearings provided a mixed picture of both progress and ongoing concerns. In January 2006, DHHS recommended that jurisdiction be terminated by April. The trial court responded that they were “troubled” by ongoing concerns and referred the matter to a “LB1184 Treatment Team.” In March 2006, that team recommended that jurisdiction be maintained and outlined eight (8) recommendations, which included: requiring an updated psychological evaluation of the mother, providing further treatment to parents to address underlying parental impairments, provide a family support worker, identifying “formal and informal community supports,” discontinuing further DHHS financial support, exploring ongoing, long-term services through the family support network, follow up on lifting “sanctions on aid for dependent children benefits,” and continuing jurisdiction until family demonstrated 6 months of stability. Finally, in April 2006, DHHS recommended that jurisdiction be terminated. The GAL and the State argued that terminating jurisdiction would not be in the children’s best interest because “the family’s progress had only been recent.” The trial court rejected DHHS’s recommendation and adopted the recommendations of the “LB1184 Treatment Team” with the exception of the“6-month minimal threshold for stability.”
DHHS appealed after a juvenile review panel affirmed the trial court’s decision. DHHS asserted that the trial court erred in not terminating jurisdiction and by “adopting the recommended treatment plan of the ‘LB1184 Treatment Team’” because the generic goals of maintaining a clean house, having steady employment and housing have already been met
The Court of Appeals concluded that terminating jurisdiction was “not in the children’s best interests because the family had failed to demonstrate stability” as evidenced by three prior reports to CPS, the conditions of the family home, and the family’s ongoing problems in managing their personal bills. The “family’s lack of financial stability directly related to their inability to care for their home and children” and the permanency goals of “maintaining steady employment and housing” had not been met. Further, the trial court did not exceed the statutory time limit for “conditions imposed upon children who are permitted to remain” in the home. Since “the trial court renewed the rehabilitation plan in new orders approximately every 3 months,” each new order created “’new’ conditions on the family, and thus the trial court did not exceed the statute of limitations.
The court also found that the trial court “did not err in adopting the plan of the ‘LB1184 Treatment Team.’” The court determined that the rehabilitation plan was in the best interests of the children because the “provisions of the rehabilitation plan [were] material to the conditions giving rise to this case” in that they provided “corrective conditions to the family’s underlying problems.” The “LB1184 Team’s” eight (8) recommendations directly addressed “present risk factors that played a major role in the pattern of neglect (i.e. parent’s financial instability, poor decision making, lack of insight, lack of ability/motivation to become self-sufficient, etc.)” and were designed to correct the underlying problems of ongoing neglect. Even though DHHS provided some of these services at an earlier time, the assistance remained necessary, as the family had “yet to maintain stability.”