SUMMARY: To establish that reasonable efforts to reunify are not required, the State must provide clear and convincing evidence. The nature and severity of the abuse, the delay in seeking treatment and the ongoing denial by the parents in this case establish that reasonable efforts are not required due to aggravated circumstances and that it is in the child’s best interests that parental rights be terminated.
Jac’Quez, DOB 4/5/02, is the son of Selina and Travis. On June 12, 2002, Jac’Quez was brought to the emergency room by his parents with injuries consistent with shaken baby syndrome, namely head injuries, a fracture to the right leg, retinal hemorrhages in both eyes and massive swelling of brain tissue. According to the parents, Jac’Quez fell off the couch on June 10, 2002 and hit his head on a phone. Over the next two days, Jac’Quez stopped eating, had twitching movements and a black eye, was unresponsive and had a “change in consciousness”, but the mother did not want to take him to the doctor. Testimony indicated that the delay in seeking treatment substantially contributed to the severity of the injuries. Jac’Quez was taken into protective custody at the hospital, and petitions to terminate the parental rights of both parents was filed on August 5, 2002, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. sections (2), (8) and (9). The State also asserted that reasonable efforts were not required pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-283.01(4) due to aggravated circumstances. On October 31, 2002, the juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights but found that reasonable efforts to reunify should be provided to the mother and denied termination. The State appealed.
The Supreme Court reversed the juvenile court’s opinion as to the mother. Regarding the burden of proof, the Supreme Court held that the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable efforts are not required due to aggravated circumstances, reasoning that this finding in effect “amounts to a substantial step toward termination of parental rights.” As to the definition of “aggravated circumstances”, the Supreme Court adopted caselaw from a New Jersey opinion that noted “the term ‘aggravated circumstances’ embodies the concept that the nature of the abuse or neglect must have been so severe or repetitive that to attempt reunification would jeopardize and compromise the safety of the child, and would place the child in a position of an unreasonable risk to be reabused” and that “whether the offer or receipt of services would correct the conditions that led to the abuse or neglect within a reasonable time may also be considered.” In this case, the Supreme Court held that although it appears Selina did not inflict the actual injuries, her delay of medical treatment for 2 days even though she was aware of the serious medical problems was a severe neglect of his medical needs. Selina’s delay created an unacceptable risk to Jac’Quez’ health and there was clear and convincing evidence that Selina subjected Jac’Quez to aggravated circumstances. The Supreme Court applied the same reasoning to satisfy the termination grounds under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-292(9) and held that the nonaccidental nature of the injuries, the level of denial of responsibility, the high medical needs of Jac’Quez and the danger in returning Jac’Quez to Selina’s home establish that it is in his best interests that Selina’s parental rights be terminated.