SUMMARY: Changing the permanency goal from reunification to guardianship/adoption was proper where the children languished for two years while the mother denied her daughter’s sexual abuse and maintained a relationship with the offender. The order changing the permanency goal was a final, appealable order because it did not offer any rehabilitation plan for the parent to reunify.
Diana M., born in 1994, Daniel M., born in 1996, Eduardo M., born in 1998, and Melissa M., born in 2000, were removed from the mother’s home due to the father of Melissa, Mauro, subjecting Diana to inappropriate sexual contact. After adjudication on February 23, 2010, over the course of two years multiple services were offered to the family including family support, visitation, therapy, psychological testing and transportation to achieve the permanency objective of reunification. The mother, Maria, regularly attended visits and therapy but continuously denied Mauro sexually assaulted Diana and continued having a relationship with him. The children had returned to Maria’s home by March 31, 2011, but were again removed in July 2011 due to Maria’s ongoing contacts with Mauro, which included Mauro sitting outside the home in his car. On January 6, 2012, a hearing was held where evidence was submitted showing that Maria wanted to make Mauro part of the family again and that Diana refused to attend therapy with her. An 1184 treatment team report also noted the large amount of work still needed after two years to achieve reunification and recommended changing the permanency goal to guardianship. This recommendation was support by the guardian ad litem. On January 23, 2012, the court ordered all previous orders to remain in effect but changed the permanency plan to “guardian/adoption” and ordered no further reasonable efforts be provided to Maria or Mauro. Maria appealed as to Daniel, Eduardo and Melissa.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the court’s order. It first concluded that the order changing the permanency plan from reunification to adoption was final and appealable because it no longer offered her a plan to reunify with her children since it ordered to cease all reasonable efforts to reunify. It then concluded that the State met its burden showing reunification was not in the children’s best interests and that the court’s order to change the permanency goal to guardianship/adoption was supported by the evidence in that Maria repeatedly refused to acknowledge the sexual abuse and had continuing contact with the offender, which prevented reunification.