SUMMARY: The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying parents’ motions to continue proceedings or to allow the mother to participate telephonically. Evidence was sufficient to support termination of parental rights where the mother refused and neglected to give necessary parental care and protection and the father had been incarcerated for nearly all of the minor child’s life.
On May 21, 1999, the State filed a petition as to Azia (DOB 2/5/1998), alleging Azia’s mother, Monique, had been arrested for solicitation and that Monique’s use of alcohol or drugs impaired her ability to parent Azia. An amended petition filed on June 3 included allegations as to Azia’s father, Stephen. Azia was adjudicated on October 13 as to Monique, and on December 20 as to Stephen. The State moved to terminate both Monique’s and Stephen’s parental rights on February 22, 2000. At the termination hearing held on May 5 and 16, Monique was not present because she was in the custody of the Wisconsin Department of Correction for violation of probation. Monique’s counsel moved for a continuance due to Monique’s absence, and Stephen’s counsel moved for a continuance on the ground he had been able to meet with Stephen only the night before. The court denied both motions. At the hearing, evidence showed that Monique had ingested cocaine while pregnant, Azia had been in foster care nearly all of her life, and Monique had visited Azia only seven times since May 1999. There was also evidence of Stephen’s extensive criminal history. The juvenile court terminated both Monique’s and Stephen’s parental rights as to Azia on May 23, 2000.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed both termination of parental rights. The juvenile court’s denial of Monique’s request for a continuance was not an abuse of discretion because the request for a continuance was not in writing and Monique had been afforded procedural due process. The juvenile court also did not err in denying Monique’s request to participate via telephone because Monique asserted her request at the termination hearing itself, and allowing such participation would have caused unwarranted delay. Termination of Monique’s parental right was warranted because there was an abundance of evidence showing that Monique refused and neglected to give Azia necessary parental care and protection. In addition, Stephen could not claim ineffective assistance of counsel because this appeal is only available in criminal cases. The juvenile court did not err in denying Stephen’s motion to continue because it was not in writing and the denial did not prejudice the conduct of the hearing. Termination of Stephen’s parental rights was proper because Stephen had a long history of convictions and incarcerations due to his voluntary and intentional acts, and Stephen had never and would never provide the emotional, psychological, and financial support that Azia needs.