SUMMARY: The juvenile court had jurisdiction to terminate parental right even though the parent’s admissions to the allegations of the petitions should not have been accepted because of a defective rights advisement because this defect did not taint later proceedings.
On June 8, 2000, Nathan called the Nebraska State Patrol to report that he and Robyn had used methamphetamines and were unable to care for their three children, Brook (DOB 1/11/1994), Tanner (DOB 4/27/1996), and Molly (2/13/2000). The family had previously been involved in two separate cases with the juvenile court, both of which had ended with the children reunifying with their parents. The children were removed from the home and the State filed a petition on June 9, 2000. At an initial hearing on June 19, the juvenile court informed Nathan and Robyn of their rights, but did not inform them that the court could terminate their parental rights. Nathan and Robyn admitted the allegations in the juvenile petition. The State filed a motion to terminate Nathan’s and Robyn’s parental rights on August 29, 2000, and the juvenile court explained the nature of the allegations and the consequences. Nathan and Robyn entered a denial of the motion. At the trial on December 7 and 8, 2000, there was evidence of the parents’ extensive history of drug use and domestic violence, including the negative effect of Nathan and Robyn’s lifestyle on the children. The juvenile court terminated Nathan’s and Robyn’s parental rights on December 27, 2000.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court failed to adequately advise Nathan and Robyn of the potential consequences of a juvenile proceeding before Nathan and Robyn admitted to the allegations in the State’s petition. However, this defect did not taint the later proceedings initiated by the State’s motion to terminate, and an adjudication is not required prior to termination based upon allegations that the children are habitually neglected or are in a situation dangerous to life or limb or injurious to their health or morals. Nathan and Robyn were accorded their due process rights after the State filed its motion to terminate because they were adequately advised of their rights at this stage of the proceeding. In addition, the evidence clearly and convincingly showed that the use of drugs rendered Nathan and Robyn unfit parents and that termination was in the children’s best interests.