SUMMARY: The children’s perceptions of permanency in distinguishing adoption and guardianship do not affect the determination of whether termination is in the children’s best interests. Termination of parental rights was proper because the mother was not capable of putting herself in a position to parent.
The family, including children Patrick N., DOB 1/99, Dakota N., DOB 2/02, and Makenzy N., DOB 7/00, have been involved with the child welfare system since March 2006 when Patrick was observed with bruises and was not attending school. The children were removed at several points, including August 2006 and November 2006 but returned to the mother, LaTonya, after the court dismissed the petitions. Another petition was filed on April 2, 2007, alleging educational neglect and LaTonya admitted to the allegations. On September 17, 2007, the children were removed from LaTonya’s home due to LaTonya’s non-compliance with the case plan and the children remained in care since that time. Between the time of adjudication and the termination trial, LaTonya did not maintain stable employment, was often late or missed visits with the children, was not consistent with drug testing and had positive tests for methamphetamine in February 2009. LaTonya did not maintain communication with the caseworker and family support worker, and was inconsistent with attending therapy. The children had several mental health issues and the inconsistency in LaTonya’s visits were negatively impacting them. A termination motion was filed in August 2009 but dismissed in January 2010. On December 3, 2010, a motion to terminate LaTonya’s parental rights was filed pursuant to N.R.S. 43-292(2) and (6). After trial, on June 30, 2011, the court terminated LaTonya’s parental rights. LaTonya appealed.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the termination. It first concluded that the evidence established a history of LaTonya’s failure to follow through on services needed to achieve reunification. It noted the children’s improved behaviors in being in a stable placement with their paternal grandmother. It acknowledged the bond between LaTonya and the children but concluded termination was in the children’s best interests. As to LaTonya’s argument that termination should not have occurred because it was not the last resort, the court noted that adoption was determined to be preferable to guardianship for several reasons, including the finality of it. The Nebraska Court of Appeals found that this was the case regardless of what the perceptions of the children were (i.e., that they could not tell the difference between guardianship and termination).