SUMMARY: A DHHS recommendation that a father be allowed to return to the family home did not have the best interests of the children as its “paramount concern” when the father’s behavior had failed to make “significant and measured improvement” and the evidence indicated a continuing psychological risk to the children.
James B. was removed from the family home and granted supervised visits with his biological son, Trent B., and his three (3) stepchildren because of his inappropriate comments and punishment of the children. At the dispositional hearing, DHHS recommended that James return to the family home, while the guardian ad litem and county attorney opposed the recommendation. After hearing evidence indicating that James remained a psychological threat to his children, the juvenile court ruled that the DHHS case plan did not have “the health and safety of the children” as “its paramount concern” and ordered that James remain out of the home, and that his son have increased visitation with his biological mother. James argued that the juvenile court erred in rejecting the DHHS case plan and in modifying visitation between James’ son and the child’s biological mother.
The Court of Appeals found that the DHHS plan was “not in the children’s best interests” because to “allow his behavior to continue…would put their health and safety at risk.” Evidence showed that James used profanity when talking to his children, and that he often spent his supervised visits “working on the computer, making telephone calls, or “looking at his ‘case plan.”” The Court also found the arguments advocating James’ return to the family home unpersuasive. The court believed that James’ four hour, three times per week visits with his children provided adequate time for James to practice his new parenting techniques. Further, the counselors conducted only limited observations of James’ interactions with his children. The family counselor “did not visit the family home at all and observed the family on only five occasions in her office.” Although some objectionable behaviors had stopped since James’s removal from the home, the court still found James’ “behavior toward the children to be intolerable” and thus agreed with the juvenile court that it was not in the children’s best interest that James return home until “he shows significant and measured improvement.” .
The court also determined that James had sufficient notice that the juvenile court planned to “address the issue” of visitation between James son’s and the child’s biological mother. Further, the court had the authority to modify visitation on its own motion under § 43-285(2). The increased visitation was also in the best interests of the child because mother and son “have a good relationship and because she engages him in appropriate activities” such as, going to the park, the library, the movies, and work together on projects. The child also “spontaneously gives his mother hugs and does not appear to be afraid.’” Accordingly, the juvenile court did not err in granting increased visitation between the juvenile and his biological mother.