SUMMARY: The parent’s occasional compliance with the court ordered plan over three years, is outweighed by the child’s need for a permanent home and termination of parental rights was therefore proper.
Kailynn I, DOB 1/00, was removed from Dawn, her mother, in November 2006 pursuant to an arrest for a fourth-offense driving under the influence. Kailynn was adjudicated on April 16, 2007, under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a), after Dawn admitted her use of substances placed Kailynn at harm. Dawn was incarcerated out-of-town from May 2, 2007 through late December 2007. She was then incarcerated in town on work release through February 16, 2008. During the periods of incarceration, the court ordered Dawn to complete a chemical dependency and psychological evaluations, attend treatment, attend supervised visitation, and maintain safe and adequate housing and a legal source of income.
Over the next 2 years, Dawn was ordered to comply with similar requirements in the case plan. Dawn used family support services and resided at a halfway house from March to August 2008. Over several months, Dawn was asked to submit to random UAs but failed to take the tests many times. In September 2008, Dawn found a two-bedroom apartment and had regular and appropriate supervised visitation there. However, she missed several therapy appointments. Dawn began substance abuse counseling in October 2008 and was successfully discharged in July 2009. However, in January 2009, Dawn had missed the past 4 to 5 UAs, and the caseworker viewed Dawn to be under the influence when she visited her house. Dawn had voluntarily accepted services through the Family Support Network but discharged one worker and had services discontinued on March 3, 2009, for lack of interest. On January 29, 2009, the State filed a motion to terminate Dawn’s parental rights. The trial was held over 8 days beginning on April 16, 2009, and ending on April 5, 2010. On May 7, 2010, the court terminated Dawn’s parental rights. Dawn appealed.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the termination. There was no contest that Kailynn had been out-of-home more than 15 of the past 22 months. As to best interests, the Court of Appeals noted Dawn’s compliance in several parts and time periods of the case. However, it also noted that “due to a lack of consistency over an extended period of time, reunification has never occurred,” at page 10, and that Dawn never made enough progress to even move beyond supervised visitation. Because Kailynn needs stability, consistency and permanency, the Court of Appeals held that termination was in her best interests.