SUMMARY: Reasonable efforts offered to a parent in a prior proceeding that are close in time to the later removal and reasonably related to the circumstances causing the removal are sufficient to satisfy the reasonable effort requirement for the later removal.
Amari A., born in September 2010, was removed from her mother and father, Michael, one week after her birth. On September 16, 2010, the State filed a petition alleging Amari to be within the meaning of N.R.S. 43-247(3)(a) as to Michael and a protective custody hearing was held on October 25, 2010. Michael had recently been involved in a child welfare case pertaining to his four stepchildren (their mother being Amari’s mother) and had admitted in that case that he failed to maintain safe and adequate housing for them. That case had ended in August 2010 with a voluntary relinquishment by the mother to all four children. During that case, Michael had been ordered to maintain stable housing, comply with random drug testing, complete a psychological evaluation and participate in supervised visits. Michael completed the assessment and participated in family support services, but stopped attending visits in February 2010 and did not comply with random drug testing. He had also moved 6 times since May 2009 and was living with his mother in October 2010. After Amari was removed from Michael’s care, Michael was offered a pretreatment assessment, visitation services and bus passes, but he indicated he did not want to participate until he could obtain a cell phone. After the hearing, the juvenile court found that it would be contrary to the best interests and safety of the child to return to the parents. Michael appealed, challenging that finding and arguing that reasonable efforts had not been provided.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s order. It noted the services that were offered to Michael during the prior proceedings that continued until August 2010, just prior to the later removal, but that Michael chose not to participate in many of them. The Court of Appeals concluded that reasonable efforts had been made to prevent the removal, stating “the efforts [of the prior removal] were close in time to Amari’s removal and were reasonably related to the circumstances the State alleged necessitated Amari’s removal from Michael’s care.” Supra at page 5. The Court of Appeals also concluded that the evidence established keeping Amari in Michael’s home would be contrary to her best interests based on Michael’s failure to comply with prior services and failure to maintain stable housing.