SUMMARY: The court lacked jurisdiction to terminate parental rights because, after learning of another state’s order establishing the father’s paternity and custody rights, it did not follow the UCCJEA requirements of (1) specifying in the order a period of time allowing the person to seek an order from the other court having jurisdiction and (2) immediately communicating with the other court.
N.R., E.R., Ay.R., M.R., Al.R., and S.R. were removed from the home of Jessica and Nicholas on March 15, 2006, after Ay.R. made allegations that her step-father Nicholas and another male relative sexually assaulted her and Jessica told her not to tell anyone. Jessica is the mother of all six children, Rony is the father of Ay.R., and Nicholas is the father of M.R., Al.R., and S.R. As to Jessica and Nicholas, the children were adjudicated within the meaning of 43-247(3)(a) on August 30, 2006. On June 8, 2007, Rony filed a complaint to intervene, which was sustained by the court on July 20, 2007. At that hearing, a 1998 court order from the State of Washington was received into evidence that established the paternity of Rony to Ay.R., designated Jessica as the custodian and reserved the issue of “residential time.” On May 19, 2008, a motion to terminate Jessica’s and Nicholas’ parental rights was filed but included no allegations as to Ay.R. On July 21, 2008, a supplemental petition and amended motion were filed to terminate Rony’s and Jessica’s parental rights to Ay.R.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights of all children exception Ay.R. From removal to the filing of the termination petition, Jessica did not substantially progress in her case plan. She failed to acknowledge the sexual abuse, was unable to protect the children against future harm, did not maintain stable housing or employment and was inconsistent with visitation. Nicholas did not complete or even substantially comply with sex offender treatment and was sentenced to 4 to 5 years in prison. The Court of Appeals concluded that it was in the children’s best interests that parental rights be terminated.
As to jurisdiction over the case involving Ay.R., the Court of Appeals held that the separate juvenile court did not have jurisdiction because it did not comply with the provisions of the UCCJEA. Because there was an existing court order from another state, the UCCJEA requires the separate juvenile court to (1) provide in its emergency court order a period of time allowing a person to seek an order from the state having jurisdiction, and to (2) immediately communicate with the other court. Since the separate juvenile court did neither, it did not have jurisdiction to terminate parental rights to Ay.R.