SUMMARY: The filing of an original petition in juvenile confers jurisdiction on the juvenile court; therefore, any jurisdictional defect in transferring the case from the district court is moot. Termination of the father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest because the child’s special needs and need for consistency cannot be met by the father given his lack of progress in treatment. The fact that the father’s child is male and the children he sexually assaulted were female does not affect the finding of the ground for termination of unfitness by repeated lewd and lascivious behavior.
Brandon (DOB 5/11/98), is the child of Shelly H. and Jeff. Jeff was convicted of sexual assault of a child, the children being his stepdaughter and an 8-year-old friend of his stepdaughter, and will be in prison until July 2010. During divorce proceedings of the parents, Brandon filed a motion to terminate his father’s parental rights. The district court transferred the motion to county court. After transfer, an amended petition was filed on January 26, 2006, to terminate the father’s parental rights. During trial, the father’s stepsister also testified that she was sexually assaulted by the father. Evidence was also received that the father had abused his position as a youth pastor to sexually assault young girls and that he had made little progress in sex offender treatment, having limited insight about his actions. On March 3, 2008, the court terminated the father’s parental rights. The father appealed claiming transfer from district court was improper, that termination was no supported by sufficient evidence and that termination wasn’t in the child’s best interest.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of the father’s parental rights. The father claimed the district improperly transferred the proceeding to county court because he was not notified of the request to transfer. The appellate court held that the filing of an original petition in juvenile court confers jurisdiction on the juvenile court regardless of whether there were jurisdictional defects in the transfer of the petition from district court.
The Court of Appeals also held that there was clear evidence for grounds under 43-292(2) as having a father who sexually assaults children is seriously detrimental to the child’s health, morals or well-being. The Court discarded the father’s argument that he was no threat to his child because his victims were all female and his child is male. The Court also held there was sufficient evidence that termination was in the child’s best interest as the child has special needs (emotionally immature, insecure, unable to understand danger and safety issues, mildly mentally handicapped) that cannot be met by the father and the father’s limited insight into his actions and lack of improvement “would seriously impede his function as a father.”