SUMMARY: Termination of parental rights was the proper where the father failed to make significant progress over 3 years in becoming able to parent the child and where the mother, while making progress right before trial, had a 10-year history with the child welfare system, took little advantage of services offered to her and chose to leave the state during the pendency of the proceedings.
Michael Jr., DOB 10/02, was removed from the home in January 2007 based on the condition of the home. The mother, Katherine, had been involved in child welfare proceedings with her other sons since 2001 due to living conditions and had eventually placed them into guardianships. The parents, Katherine and Michael admitted to the allegations and Michael Jr. was adjudicated. Review hearings were held every three months through 2008. Neither parent maintained stable employment or housing, with Katherine back to 2001. Michael remained unable to pay bills or rent, and failed to participate in recommended therapy. Michael completed a parenting booklet and accepted redirection from the family support worker but was never able to internalize the recommendations. Katherine began therapy but did not make any progress and quit. Katherine enlisted in the military in February 2008 and spent the majority of the remaining time outside of the state, seeing Michael Jr. rarely. On December 23, 2008, the State filed a motion for termination of parental rights and, after trial in September and October 2010, the juvenile court terminated the parental rights of Katherine and Michael. Both parents appealed.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the terminations of parental rights. As to Michael, the Court of Appeals noted his lack of progress and stated that he “has failed to demonstrate consistency in any area of his life, including his housing, his employment, his finances, or his parenting skills.” As to Katherine, the Court of Appeals recognized the positive steps she made prior to trial but noted that it took 10 years to do so and that she “squandered” the years of services and opportunities the Department offered to her. It concluded by noting that “[p]erhaps most revealing is her decision to leave the state during these juvenile court proceedings.”