SUMMARY: Termination of parental rights was proper where the parent did not rehabilitate herself in the two years the children were in foster care and could not provide permanency and stability. After termination, the children’s best interests would not be served by ongoing contact with the grandmother even though she had a positive relationship with the children.
Saunia T., DOB 5/04, Mataya H., DOB 3/09, and Makiya H., DOB 3/09, were removed from the home of the mother, Amber, in March 2010 after Amber left them home alone within reach of marijuana and because she was incarcerated. After adjudication on May 21, 2010, Amber was ordered to complete drug treatment, participate in AA/NA, complete a parenting class, maintain income and finding safe and stable housing. Amber completed a variety of evaluations but, whether because of confusion in payment or the failure of Amber to follow through, did not begin treatment. She missed 40 random drug tests over the course of 15 months. Amber was bonded with the children and had very positive visits but had sporadic attendance at times and by June 2011 did not attend any visits. Amber did find employment and was working between 30 and 60 hours per week but refused to inform the caseworker where she was living. Amber had several caseworkers during her case and had personality conflicts with some of them. It was disputed as to who was responsible for the inconsistency in communication. Before their removal, the children lived with Amber for a time at the home of maternal grandmother, Paula. Paula had a strong connection with the children and was highly involved in their rearing. On August 16, 2011, the State filed a motion to terminate Amber’s parental rights. On November 21, 2011, the maternal grandmother filed a motion to request visitation but the court overruled the motion. Trial on the TPR began on January 27, 2012, and on April 2, 2012, the court terminated her parental rights. Amber appealed.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the termination. It acknowledged the bond between Amber and her children but noted Amber’s inability to comply with the case plan, including missing visits which caused stress to Saunia. It noted that during the two years the children were in foster care, Amber was unable to rehabilitate herself and that termination was in the children’s best interests. As to the issue of grandparent visitation, the Court of Appeals noted the strong relationship the grandmother had with the children but cited the holding in In re Interest of Ditter, 212 Neb. 855, 857-59, 326 N.W.2d 675, 676-77 (1982) (finding that “by terminating parental rights we intend to divest any tie between the parent and child so that we may, as quickly as possible, find an adoptive family…little purpose would be served in continuing family ties between the grandparents and the child….we must conclude as a matter of law that the best interests of a child require us to find that where a natural parent’s rights to a child have been terminated, the grandparents should not have a legal right to seek visitation.”). The Court of Appeals found this case congruent with that in Ditter and concluded the children’s best interests would not be served by continued contact with the grandmother, especially since Amber was continuing to live with her.