SUMMARY: A termination of parental rights was improper when the mother was deported from the country, was not represented at either the adjudication or termination hearings, the record was devoid of any facts to support the case plan, and the mother was not given any provisions or opportunity to rehabilitate herself.
On March 22, 2001, Mercedes, mother of Mainor and Estela, was arrested for striking Mainor, and a 3a petition was filed on March 23. The Immigration and Naturalization Service put a hold on Mercedes while she was in county jail because she was an illegal alien; Mercedes was eventually deported to her native country of Guatamala. The juvenile court issued a summons on Mercedes in county jail, but Mercedes did not appear at the April 9, 2001 adjudication hearing. The court adjudicated both children, and the order indicated that reasonable efforts are not required to preserve and reunify because Mercedes has subjected the children to aggravated circumstances. A June 20 written order following a disposition hearing indicates that the permanency objective was reunification. The case plan’s only goal was to locate appropriate long-term placement by the children. Subsequent review hearings and case plans retained the permanency goal of reunification; however, the only stated goals in the case plan involved finding an alternative permanent home for the children. Sometime in March, Mercedes’ attorney filed an affidavit with the court from an immigration attorney who had been retained by Mercedes to help find a way to participate in the proceedings. On March 30, 2002, the State filed a motion to terminate Mercedes’ parental rights based on the fact that the children were out of the home 15 or more of the most recent 22 months. Immediately prior to the termination hearing on June 27, 2002, Mercedes’ attorney requested and was granted permission to withdraw as counsel because he had not been able to communicate with his client. The hearing proceeded without any representation of Mercedes. At the hearing, there was evidence that Mercedes had not contacted her children or had provided financial support for them since their removal from the home. The juvenile court suggested the evidence supported an additional finding of abandonment as supporting a termination of parental rights, and entered a handwritten Mercedes’ parental rights on June 27, 2002. Mercedes’ new counsel filed an appeal that was dismissed because the handwritten termination order was so illegible it could not be considered a final order. The court entered a typewritten order terminating Mercedes’ parental rights on September 17, 2002.
The Supreme Court of Nebraska reversed the termination of parental rights. First, the Court noted that Mercedes had been denied due process throughout the proceedings. There was no record that the court had conducted a detention hearing, as required by state law. At the adjudication hearing, the juvenile court had acknowledged that Mercedes was in county jail, but proceeded without her presence anyway. Additionally, Mercedes was never informed of her rights or represented at either the adjudication or termination hearings. Second, the case plan and court report’s goals to find alternative placements did not reasonably relate to the objective of reunification. The juvenile court never stated facts on the record to support the rehabilitative plan. Last, the record did not contain any facts that Mercedes intentionally withheld care from a child to support a finding of abandonment. The juvenile court could not show that termination was in the children’s best interests because the case plan did not provide Mercedes with any means of achieving reunification.