SUMMARY: Evidence was sufficient to support a termination of a mother’s parental rights when the mother sexually assaulted a young girl and suffered from mental disabilities. The juvenile court did not err by excluding expert testimony of psychosexual development of teenage girls and of the mother’s personal characteristics that make it more likely she was coerced to confess.
The State filed a petition on June 10, 2010 for temporary custody of Neveah, based on a police officer’s affidavit that Neveah’s mother, Amber, had a sexual relationship with an 11-year-old girl, J.C, and was found mentally incompetent to stand trial on charges of first degree sexual assault of a child and attempted kidnapping. At the adjudication hearing, J.C. testified as to sexual contact between her and Amber; in contrast, Amber’s niece testified that there was no such sexual contact. Amber’s mother, Susan, testified that she was Neveah’s primary caretaker and that Amber had mental retardation and hearing problems. Evidence was introduced of a recorded telephone call between Amber and J.C., during which Amber admitted to the sexual assault. There was also evidence that Amber had an impulse control disorder, attention deficit disorder, mild mental retardation, and deficits in social skills. Amber attempted to introduce evidence from a psychologist who had previously examined her that her personal characteristics made it likely she was coerced to confess; the juvenile court excluded this evidence as hearsay and not within the medical exception because the statements Amber made to the psychologist were not for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment. In addition, the juvenile court excluded expert testimony from the psychologist regarding psychosocial development of girls ages 11-13 because it was irrelevant. The juvenile court adjudicated Neveah.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the adjudication. First, the juvenile court properly considered all witnesses and carefully weighed the credibility of the evidence. Also, the juvenile court properly excluded the psychologist’s testimony as to whether Amber was coerced because the statements were hearsay not fitting within any exception. Additionally, the expert testimony regarding the psychosexual development of young girls was properly excluded because it was no probative of Amber’s own development. The evidence showed Neveah was at a definite risk of future harm due to Amber’s actions, because the evidence was sufficient to support that Amber sexually assaulted J.C., had been found mentally incompetent to stand trial, and had mental deficiencies that would place Neveah at risk of harm.