SUMMARY: The change of permanency objective by the court from reunification to adoption/ guardianship was proper because although the mother/guardian had participated in services, she has demonstrated unwillingness over 2 years to make the necessary changes.
Debra is the mother of Marcus C., DOB 8/92, and Cameron, DOB 5/95, and the legal guardian of her grandchildren, LaCroy, DOB 8/99, Lela, DOB 2/01, Daniel, DOB 9/02, and Precious, DOB 5/04. A petition was filed on June 8, 2009, under N.R.S. 43-247(3)(a) alleging a filthy home and risk of harm due to Debra’s use of alcohol and/or controlled substances. Debra admitted to the allegations on July 22, 2009, and on May 5, 2010, the court ordered Debra to abstain from use of controlled substances, attend AA, participate in outpatient treatment, attend family therapy and visits, have stable housing and maintain a legal source of income that can support her family. It was agreed that Debra had housing, income, had completed outpatient therapy and attended AA meetings. However, at a November 2, 2010, review and permanency planning hearing, DHHS reported that Debra only went through the motions and denied any problems, that she was at risk of losing her home for failure to pay the mortgage and bills, that numerous unidentified individuals were constantly visiting her home and that her income was not high enough to support her family. At the review and permanency planning hearing on April 25, 2011, DHHS indicated Debra continued to be in denial, was unwilling to let case professionals in her home and continued to allow unauthorized people in the home. In a June 7, 2011, order, the court refused to adopt the permanency plan of reunification and asked DHHS to submit an alternate plan. A June 28, 2011, order found the permanency objective of the four youngest children to be adoption with a concurrent plan of guardianship and for Cameron to be guardianship with a concurrent plan of independent living. Debra appealed.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the change of permanency plan. It noted the statutory change of N.R.S. 43-285(2) from DHHS having a presumption to having a burden in showing that its case plan is in the child’s best interest. The Court of Appeals reviewed the evidence that Debra did not take advantage of services offered to her regarding finances, family support and employment over a period of two years and concluded that the State established that reunification is not in the children’s best interests and that it was not an error for the court to change the permanency objective.