SUMMARY: During an appeal of termination of parental rights, the parents cannot collaterally attack the adjudication or case plans adopted pursuant to adjudication. The condition of the home, which was the basis for adjudication, was merely a manifestation of the parents’ inability to properly care for the children; the case plan established goals related to properly care for the children and the parents failed to substantially comply with the plan and rehabilitate themselves. The 15/22 month provision in Neb. Rev. Stat. section 43-292(7) is not unconstitutional.
Ty M., DOB 3/23/97, and Devon M., DOB 6/10/98, were removed from the parental home of Shawn and Holly on November 20, 1998, and again on February 3, 1999, due to filthy conditions of the home and issues with providing appropriate medical care to Devon, who had reactive airway disease. The children were adjudicated as to Holly on March 24, 1999, and as to Shawn on April 14, 1999. Between April 20, 1999, and January 16, 2001, six case plans were approved by the court that outlined goals for the parents, including counseling for mental health, anger management and domestic violence, and parenting skills and finances, which the court found were designed to correct the conditions that led to out-of-home placement. Between removal and the filing of the termination petition, the parents did little to comply with the case plan. Shawn committed domestic violence against Holly on a number of occasions, but Holly did not attend domestic violence counseling and continually returned to Shawn. Shawn was incarcerated between October 1999 and October 2000 and, although he had the opportunity, failed to engage in counseling, anger management and parenting classes. During visitation, neither parent demonstrated an ability to parent, and were often redirected on basic safety and cleanliness issues. On February 27, 2001, the State filed a petition to terminate parental rights of Shawn and Holly, and on January 8, 2002, the court terminated their parental rights. Both Shawn and Holly appealed.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the termination of parental rights. To the parents’ claim that the basis for adjudication, which was a filthy home, was corrected and the subsequent case plans included requirements above and beyond the reason for adjudication, the Supreme Court held that the parents cannot collaterally attack the adjudication or case plans at termination. As to the basis for termination, the Supreme Court found that although the parents minimally complied with being able to provide a clean home, the underlying reasons for the cause of the filthy home – domestic violence, depression, inability to parent, finances – were repeatedly not addressed by the parents even though they were given reasonable opportunities to do so. The Supreme Court also found that the juvenile court properly admitted into evidence its own records and case plans. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the ground for termination where the child has been out of home 15 of the past 22 months is not unconstitutional because it provides a guideline for a “reasonable time” given to the parents to rehabilitate themselves and Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-292 still requires a finding of best interests before parental rights may be terminated.