Summary: Termination of parental rights was proper when a mental illness renders the mother unable to care for her children and will continue for a prolonged and indeterminate period. Additionally, the delay in the hearing that was not prejudicial to the mother is not grounds to reverse the lower court decisions.
T.E. (born February 17, 1984) and S.E. (born December 19, 1987) were removed from their mother’s care in August of 1986. The petition alleged that the mother was mentally ill and unable to care for her children. The mother admitted the allegations at the adjudication hearing subsequently held. The court order the Department of Social Services retain custody retain temporary custody and the mother comply with a rehabilitation plan. R.E. (born December 19, 1987) was removed from the mother’s care in January 1988 and placed in temporary custody of the Depart of Social Services. Again, the mother admitted the same allegations in the petition at a subsequent adjudication hearing. The court again ordered R.E. remain in the custody of the Department of Social Services and the mother comply with a rehabilitation plan.
On February 8, 1989, The Douglas County Attorney filed separate petitions to terminate the mother’s parental rights because she was unable to discharge parental responsibilities because of her mental illness and the condition was likely to continue for a prolonged, indeterminate period of time. The evidentiary hearing originally scheduled for April 19, 1989 was ultimately held August 10, 1989, after three continuances. On July 28, the mother filed a motion to dismiss the state’s motion to terminate her parental rights because the evidentiary hearing had not been held within 6 months of the motion. The state presented evidence from two psychiatrists the mother had seen over an 18-month period. The court overruled the motion. The state also encouraged the court to look at the reports from previous hearings. The court terminated her parental rights, having found clear and convincing evidence that the mother could not care for her children due to a mental illness and that the condition was likely to continue for a prolonged and indeterminate period.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision. The mother argued the lower court violated the constitution by failing to apply fundamentally fair procedures, by admitting reports containing hearsay evidence, and in denying her motions to dismiss. The Court considered the record from the evidentiary hearing and concluded there was sufficient evidence to find the mother was unable to care for her children because of a mental illness and that the condition was likely to continue for a prolonged and indeterminate period. The Court held there was no evidence the deciding court considered the reports containing hearsay evidence the state requested they consider. Further, the reports had been presented to the court during previous hearings. Additionally, even if the deciding court did consider the reports, the Supreme Court did not consider them in making their own decision about the sufficiency of the evidence. The Court also rejected the contention that the evidentiary hearing must be held within 6 months of the motion being filed, which had been recently been rejected in another case. Further, the mother failed to show she was prejudiced by the delay.