SUMMARY: Termination of parental rights was proper where the father was unwilling to address his meth addiction even though given a reasonable amount of time. Termination based on allegations of substance abuse not part of the original adjudication was not improper because the court can consider all evidence in deciding best interests and the father was on notice from the beginning of the case that this was an issue and was adequately represented.
Kevin H., DOB 4/04, and Kaylee H., DOB 4/07, were removed from the parents’ home in April 2009 after a domestic dispute. Concerns about the home’s cleanliness were not addressed and the parents admitted to methamphetamine use. The father, Russell, is the subject of this appeal. The children were adjudicated on August 12, 2009, based on the allegation of a dirty home. By May 5th, the home met minimal cleanliness standards. Russell was ordered to complete an assessment, which he did not do until October 2010. At disposition on October 14, 2009, Russell was ordered to complete various evaluations and assessments, maintain employment and find suitable housing. Russell missed several appointments and random UA requests. He was discharged from an intensive outpatient program for failure to attend. Russell attended another program but it did not focus on his methamphetamine use. He had sporadic employment with a construction company and shared his mother’s home. He continued to test positive for meth up to two months before trial and admitted to a caseworker that it was either drugs or suicide. On August 18, 2010, the State filed a motion to terminate parental rights. After trial in June 2011, the court terminated parental rights. Russell appealed.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights. It first found that the children had been out of home more than 15 of the past 22 months. In addressing best interests, the Court of Appeals focused on Russell’s failure to actively engage in services in a reasonable amount of time. It noted Russell’s ongoing drug use and his choice of drugs over parenting. As to Russell’s argument that his due process rights were violated because the termination of parental rights was based on allegations of substance abuse not included in the original adjudication, the Court of Appeals first noted that it is obligated to review all evidence presented by the parties in determining what is in the children’s best interests. Furthermore, it said that Russell was on notice from the beginning as to the allegations and had legal representation and the opportunity to appear. Finally, the Court of Appeals acknowledged that although evidence as to the superiority of the foster home over Russell’s home may have been improper, there was already clear evidence supporting termination.