SUMMARY: The mother did not challenge DHHS parameters on visitation or timely appeal the court’s order permitting DHHS’ restrictions, and her argument therefore has no merit on appeal. Termination of parental rights was proper as to all children as the mother did not truly begin working on her rehabilitation plan until after the termination petition was filed three years after the children were removed and the three oldest had been out of home more than 15 of the past 22 months.
The children, Courtney (DOB 2/18/96), Jaden (10/21/98), and Payton (1/17/01) were removed from the home of the mother, Dana, on February 23, 2004. On allegations of failure to provide necessary care and support in part based on drug abuse. On August 10, 2004, the children were adjudicated at risk for harm based on Dana’s failure to take medication and improper parental care, and the mother was ordered to complete a psych evaluation, paternity affidavits and therapy progress report. Disposition was held on October 15, 2004, where Dana was order to obtain housing and income, complete several evaluations and engage in visitation. On January 27, 2005, Grace (DOB 1/25/05) was added to the case.Additional allegations were alleged in a supplement petition, and Dana admitted to placing Grace at risk for harm. Multiple dispositional hearings were held over the next year. On April 24, 2006, Hannah (DOB 12/24/05) was added to the case by supplemental petition. Motions to terminate Dana’s parental rights as to all children were filed on May 9, 2006. After trial, the court terminated Dana’s parental rights. Dana appealed the order, challenging that the court improperly delegated visitation restrictions to DHHS and that the termination was improper.
On the issue of visitation, the evidence established that Dana was initially given visitation rights, but that they were restricted twice to a “dual confirmation” status after Dana missed several visits, causing transportation problems. The Nebraska Court of Appeals found that Dana did not properly object to DHHS actions to the trial court, and her argument therefore had no merit.
On the issue of termination of parental rights, the Nebraska Court of Appeals held that termination of Dana’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest because Dana made little progress in the three years she was given to work on a rehabilitation plan. She was homeless, did not comply with UAs, did not attend counseling and did not complete all ordered evaluations. The progress she claims she made after the motion for termination of parental rights was filed was still minimal and made too late. The Court of Appeals held that the evidence satisfied the statutory basis that Dana substantially and continuously or repeatedly neglected and refused to give her children necessary parental care and protection, that the older three children had been out of home more than 15 of the past 22 months and that termination was in the children’s best interest.