SUMMARY: Termination of an incarcerated parent’s rights was in the best interests of the children because the incarceration prevented the parent from providing a “nurturing and structured environment,” and the parent’s continual perpetuation of crimes cast doubt on his ability to make the permanent changes required for adequate parenting.
Two special needs children were removed from their mother’s home and placed in foster care on May 1, 2003. The children’s father was unavailable for placement due to his present incarceration for possession of a firearm by a felon and for being a habitual criminal. Reunification with the father was impossible until his scheduled release date of December 2012. On May 25, 2005, the State sought to terminate the father’s parental rights claiming that he was unable to meet his children’s needs until his release from prison. At the trial, the court found that the children did not receive proper parental care due to the father’s faults and habits, and concluded that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. The father appealed.
The Court of Appeals found that the State met their adjudication burden under §43-247(3)(a), and upheld the termination order of the trial court. Although a parental incarceration may not be the sole basis for a termination proceeding, evidence of a “parent’s inability to perform his or her parental obligations because of imprisonment, the nature of the crime committed, as well as the person against whom the crime was perpetrated” may properly be considered in “assessing parental fitness and child welfare.” Termination was in the children’s best interests, as the incarceration prevented the father from providing a “nurturing and structured environment” for the children. The father continued to commit offenses after the birth of his children and despite the father’s active participation in prison programs, there was insufficient evidence to show that the father would make the permanent changes required for adequate parenting. The foster parents’ desire to adopt the children also indicated greater permanency for the children than would be available otherwise. The Court of Appeals rejected the father’s claim that his rights should not be terminated unless the mother’s parental rights are also terminated, stating that the claim lacked sufficient legal evidence.