SUMMARY: Termination of parental rights reversed after de novo review of record. Hearsay evidence was ruled inadmissible after analysis of due process.
Larry G, father of Constance G, appealed the juvenile court’s decision to terminate parental rights. The court of appeals reversed and the rights of the father were reinstated and the physical custody of the child restored to him, subject to supervision by the department. The child was identified as high needs and the father was identified as having an anger control problem and as needing parenting skills. A 6-month timeframe was given to father to accomplish goals set forth by psychologist. Father only partially completed goals and the juvenile court entered termination order. The father claimed the juvenile court erred in admitting the opinion of a clinical psychologist that the father’s parental rights should be terminated and in admitting the written report containing the findings and recommendations of the State Foster Care Review Board.
The psychologist’s report was outdated. The Supreme Court of Nebraska found that such evidence is admissible and the opinion being considerably dated goes to the weight to be given the opinion, not to its admissibility. The hearsay report from the review board was the primary issue. Because hearsay evidence is not subject to the test of cross-examination, it is unreliable. For that reason, with certain exceptions not applicable here, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-802 renders hearsay evidence inadmissible. The court went into an in-depth analysis of the application of due process in parental termination cases and concluded that the requirements of due process control in determining the type of evidence. The court explained that the improper admission of evidence in a parental rights proceeding does not, in and of itself, constitute reversible error. For as long as the appellant properly objected, the court considers any such evidence in a de novo review of the record. The holding was ultimately reversed after revisiting the best interest analysis and the court concluded that the father had substantially complied with the juvenile court’s reunification plan and has substantially rehabilitated himself. The court found that the best interests of the child were not served by terminating the father’s parental rights but, quite to the contrary, were best served by reestablishing his parental role.