SUMMARY: Where a child has been adjudicated pursuant to N.R.S. 43-247(3)(a) and a permanency objective of adoption has been established, a juvenile court has authority under the juvenile code to order DHHS to accept a tendered relinquishment of parental rights.
Gabriela H., DOB 9/97, was left at an Omaha hospital by her mother on November 7, 2008. She was adjudicated on February 23, 2009, pursuant to N.R.S. 43-247(3)(a) and has remained in care the entire time. The mother was ordered to pay child support. At a permanency hearing on March 30, 2009, the court ordered that reasonable efforts were not required because both the mother and father indicated that they wanted no relationship with her and wanted to relinquish their parental rights. At a permanency hearing on November 10, 2009, the permanency goal was changed to adoption. However, DHHS refused to accept relinquishment because they had no adoptive home available and because they wanted to continue receiving child support payments for Gabriela’s care. Therefore, the court ordered DHHS to accept the relinquishments. DHHS appealed.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the court’s order. Although the appropriate statute on relinquishment, 43-106.01, includes as a condition that DHHS “has, in writing, accepted full responsibility for the child,” the Supreme Court found that juvenile courts have the authority to determine placement of a child as established by 43-284 (where courts can order DHHS to accept the child’s placement) and 43-285(2) (where courts can reject a placement plan created by DHHS). Furthermore, the Supreme Court found that DHHS is limited in its authority by 43-285(1), which provides that DHHS has “authority, by and with the assent of the court, to determine the care, placement…..” Finally, the Supreme Court noted that under 43-1312(2), “[i]f the return of the child to his or her parents is not likely…., [DHHS] shall recommend termination of parental rights…”, and that refusal to accept a relinquishment in the current situation would violate the principle of this statute. The Supreme Court concluded by rejecting the loss of child support argument stating that “it cannot justify the legal perpetuation of a parental relationship which no longer exists in fact, thereby permitting an abandoned child to linger indefinitely in foster care.” 280 Neb. at 291.