SUMMARY: The sole testimony of two caseworkers with limited firsthand knowledge of the mother’s progress did not sufficiently establish that termination was in the children’s best interests, such as evidence that adoption was a possibility or of the needs or interests of the children.
On April 22, 2004, a petition was filed alleging that Eden and Allison came within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. section 43-247(3)(a) due to the mother’s drug abuse, engagement in domestic violence, failure to provide housing and incarceration. On July 6, 2004, the children were adjudicated under 3a, and on August 9, 2005, a motion to terminate the mother’s parental rights was filed. The mother was incarcerated off and on in 2004 and again in 2005, not to be released until late 2007. She completed a chemical dependency evaluation in June 2004 but could not enter treatment due to waiting lists, and did not undergo treatment until entering jail in 2005. The mother gave birth to Allison testing positive for methamphetamines, and in 2004 continued maintaining a relationship with the partner alleged to be committing domestic violence. Once incarcerated, DHHS did not provide visitation even though court-ordered. The first caseworker never attended visitation and had no knowledge as to the mother’s progress with treatment. The second caseworker acknowledged the mother’s full compliance with the current case plan and her involvement in treatment, and noted positive reports about visitation. On November 30, 2005, the court entered an order terminating the mother’s parental rights. The mother appealed.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed the termination. The Court of Appeals noted that the only witnesses at trial were the two caseworkers who focused on the need for permanency. However, no evidence was presented that adoption was a possibility to show that the children would have any more permanence after termination. The caseworkers’ testimony shows that the mother had a positive relationship with the children and made solid efforts to stay in contact, and that the mother was consistently improving. The Court of Appeals concluded that the State failed to prove that termination was in the children’s best interests.