Summary: The State made reasonable efforts to reunify the family by providing hands on parenting, home management, and cleaning support. Evidence that the father was unwilling to support or parent his children and that he was not bonded with the children supports the termination of his parental right in his three children.
In September 1986 S.R. (7/25/83), D.R. (10/10/84), and B.R. (12/1/85) came under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court due to concerns about the conditions of the home and the physical and medical care the children were receiving. J.R. and D.R., the parents, began working with the State and family support workers on a voluntary basis on parenting, budgeting, and housekeeping skills. In December 1986, the children were removed from the home after a police officer visited the house and discovered the house and children covered in feces, urine, old food, and bugs. The children were returned in January of 1987 and the State continued to work with the parents on parenting, home management and hygiene. The State provided whatever was needed for the family, including transportation and food vouchers. Before December 1988 the children were removed two more times after the guardian ad litem filed petitions for review. After the children were removed in December 1988 the parents continued to receive services and supervised visits with the children. In May 1989 the father was arrested for failure to pay child support for a child not involved in this case and spent 3 weeks in jail. During that time, the mother moved out of the family home and stopped visiting with the children. Upon release the father resumed supervised visitations. Visitation workers observed that the father was very passive and had to be prompted to interact with his children. In July of 1990, the State filed a motion to terminate parental rights. The State established that the father had not put any resources toward obtaining and creating a home for the children and there was unlikely to be any improvement in his parenting skills. Considering the chances of parenting improvement, that he was unlikely to assume proper care for his children and the lack of bonding between the father and children, the Juvenile Court terminated parental rights.
The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed the termination of parental rights. The State made extraordinary efforts to reunite the children with their parents. The law only requires that reasonable efforts be made. The children in this case were kept in limbo for too long, it was obvious to a reasonable person that reunification was not likely before the guardian ad litem’s second petition for removal. The court noted that the fundamental liberty interests of parents in care and control of their children does not end simply because one is not a model parent. However, when those reasonable efforts demonstrate that it is unlikely that a family can be reunited, the perishable nature of childhood requires that the State intervene and take action.