SUMMARY: There was sufficient evidence that the child comes within the meaning of 43-247(3)(a) based on the child’s testimony of inappropriate discipline, failure to care for injuries and her fear of her mother and step-father, but the DHHS recommendation for continued placement in the father’s home was shown not to be in the child’s best interest based on the father’s past criminal history and history of domestic violence and the child’s unhappiness with the placement.
Nature, a 12-year-old girl, was removed from her mother and stepfather’s home on April 13, 2010, after she made allegations of physical abuse and failure by her mother to care for her injuries and protect her from harm. Nature’s father, Christopher, made motions to intervene and for placement, and placement was granted on July 15, 2010. At the adjudication/dispositional hearing on October 25, 2010, Nature testified that her stepfather struck her with a belt causing her nose and mouth to bleed and that her mother did not care for her injuries. She also spoke of past abuse – testifying her stepfather hit her on more than 12 occasions since she was 5 – and that her mother has hit her with a belt in several instances. The initial assessment worker also testified that Nature’s physician stated Nature was having suicidal ideations and was self-harming. The court found Nature to be within the meaning of N.R.S. 43-247(3)(a) and ordered Nature to remain in care with placement to include the father’s home. The mother appealed.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the adjudication but reversed as to continued placement with the father. As to adjudication, the Court of Appeals found that the evidence adduced at trial – specifically, Nature’s testimony and her fear of her mother and stepfather – was sufficient to warrant adjudication. It also found that the court did not err in ordering the mother to comply with a rehabilitation plan. Regarding Nature’s placement with Christopher, however, the Court of Appeals found that there was sufficient evidence presented to overcome the recommendation in the DHHS case plan for continued placement there. Specifically, the evidence included a denial from an Ohio home study based on Christopher’s violent history, past domestic abuse between Christopher and his wife, physical discipline of Nature and past substantiation and involvement with child welfare services in Ohio. The Court of Appeals noted that a recent law change to 43-285(2) removes the presumption of preference in favor of the DHHS plan.