SUMMARY: Termination of the mother’s parental rights was proper where she has had three prior involuntary terminations and has made no efforts in the short time of the current case to avail herself of services.
Emily, DOB 4/11, is the fourth child of Amanda V. Amanda V. had her rights involuntarily terminated as to the previous three children after extensive services were provided. Her parental rights to Samantha L, DOB 10/99, were terminated in January 2007 after Amanda did not resolve her problems with methamphetamine and she failed to follow through on treatment or attend visits with Samantha. Her parental right to Nathaniel, DOB 5/08, and Luis H., DOB 1/09, were terminated in May 2010 after Amanda failed to resolve her mental health and prescription medication addiction after being offered family support work, chemical dependency treatment, transportation, parenting classes and random drug testing. Emily was born in April 2011. In August 2012, DHHS tried to open a voluntary case with Amanda after receiving a report that she was abusing prescription medication but the voluntary plan failed within one day after Amanda got into a fight with her mother for not providing medication. Emily was removed from Amanda’s home on August 31, 2012, and a 3a petition was filed alleging alcohol and controlled substance use, domestic violence, unsafe housing, and prior involuntary terminations. At the Protective Custody Hearing on September 12, 2012, Amanda agreed to voluntarily participate in services. However, she did not follow through. One month later, the State filed an amended petition to terminate Amanda’s parental rights pursuant to N.R.S. 43-292(2). After trial in December 2012, January and February 2013, the juvenile court terminated Amanda’s parental rights. Amanda appealed.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights. In determining whether there was sufficient evidence under 43-292(2), the court noted the three prior involuntary terminations of Amanda’s older children and Amanda’s ongoing struggles with the same issues that led to those earlier terminations. As to best interests, the Court of Appeals rejected Amanda’s arguments that it should focus on the present situation and that DHHS needed to provide her with different services since she failed with similar services in the past. It recounted Amanda’s long history of mental health problems, substance abuse, and domestic violence, and her failure to make sufficient progress in the prior cases. The Court of Appeals also noted Amanda’s failure to cooperate with the services offered to her in September and October 2012 prior to the TPR filing, and that she didn’t offer any suggestions of what other services could have been offered to her. It also rejected Amanda’s argument of insufficient time to comply by noting that Amanda made little progress even in the additional time before the TPR trial began.