SUMMARY: Termination of parental rights was proper where evidence of the mother’s unfitness supporting termination included a history of homelessness and inappropriate housing, her choice not to live close to the children, her minimal contact with the children over three years and her use of marijuana.
Delana S., DOB 12/05, and Mark G., DOB 5/08, were removed from the home of the mother, Annea, on June 20, 2008, based on the physical abuse by Mark’s father and Annea’s failure to protect. Shortly after removal, Annea left the state and since then has lived outside Nebraska. The children were adjudicated under N.R.S. 43-247(3)(a) on December 12, 2008, and the court approved a case plan in January 2009 that required Annea to work with a family support worker, attend parenting classes and individual therapy, complete a pretreatment assessment, abstain from illegal drugs and visit with the children. Over the length of the case, the DHHS caseworker had difficulty in maintaining contact with Annea. Annea would call periodically with new contact information, which would then soon become inoperable. Annea attended few visits with the children; she visited with the children until moving in August 2008, had occasional telephone visits around January 2009 and in-person visits in March and April, and then no further contact until the time of trial in May 2011. Annea also made little progress in the other aspects of the case plan. The children were living with their maternal grandparents and had a strong bond with them. In February 2010, the State filed an amended motion to terminate and after trial in May 2011, the court terminated parental rights. The mother appealed.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the termination. It first found the children were out of home more than 15 of the past 22 months. Then, addressing parental unfitness, the Court of Appeals found Annea to be an unfit parent for several reasons, which included: lack of housing and homelessness, her choice to not live near her children despite being advised by DHHS to do so, her positive tests for marijuana when she was in contact with DHHS, and, what the Court of Appeals deemed most important, her lack of contact with the children.