In Re Sir Messiah T.
279 Neb. 900, 782 N.W.2d 320 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Nebraska Revised Statute § 43-292(2), which permits termination of parental rights based on a parent's substantial and continuous or repeated neglect of a juvenile or a sibling, is constitutional and does not violate procedural due process when it requires a showing of current best interests and provides for an evidentiary hearing considering present circumstances.
Facts:
- On May 5, 2003, the separate juvenile court of Douglas County terminated Yolanda A.'s parental rights to her three older children due to neglect.
- Sir Messiah T. and Mirage T., two of the children involved in this current case, had been born before the 2003 termination, but Yolanda A.'s parental rights to them were not terminated in that proceeding.
- On September 9, 2007, police arrested Yolanda A. for slashing tires on a friend's car.
- Following Yolanda A.'s arrest, police discovered her four children (Sir Messiah T., Mirage T., Carlieon T., and Crystasia T.), all under the age of 9, left alone at home with a knife wedged in the door, preventing their escape.
- After this incident, the four children were removed from Yolanda A.'s home and placed in foster care, with Yolanda A.'s contact limited to supervised visitation.
- During their time in foster care, Sir Messiah T. and Mirage T. were identified as high-needs children, with Sir Messiah placed in treatment-based foster care and Mirage in agency-based foster care, and both children reported physical abuse by Yolanda A.
- Yolanda A. maintained an ongoing relationship with Carl T., the father of Carlieon T. and Crystasia T., despite Carl T.'s history of domestic violence with Yolanda A. in the children's presence.
- Yolanda A. participated in three chemical dependency programs since 2007 but had five documented uses of alcohol since March 2008, frequently missed random urinalysis tests, and withheld information about a May 2008 driving under the influence charge from her therapist for six months.
- In August 2008, during a supervised visit with her children, Yolanda A. was intoxicated and acted out, requiring police intervention.
Procedural Posture:
- On May 5, 2003, the separate juvenile court of Douglas County terminated Yolanda A.'s parental rights to her three older children pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 43-292(2).
- On November 1, 2007, the four children (Sir Messiah T., Mirage T., Carlieon T., and Crystasia T.) were adjudicated as being within the meaning of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) by the separate juvenile court of Douglas County.
- Between January and August 2008, various plans of rehabilitation aimed at family preservation and reunification were filed for Yolanda A. and her children.
- On October 2, 2008, the State of Nebraska filed a motion in the separate juvenile court of Douglas County to terminate Yolanda A.'s parental rights to her four children based on Neb.Rev.Stat. § 43-292(2) and (6).
- Prior to the termination hearing, Yolanda A. filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, challenging the constitutionality of § 43-292(2), which the juvenile court overruled.
- On April 27, 2009, the juvenile court held an evidentiary hearing on the State's motion to terminate.
- On June 30, 2009, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that the children were within the meaning of § 43-292(2) and (6) and that termination of Yolanda A.'s parental rights was in their best interests, ordering the termination of her parental rights.
- Yolanda A. appealed the juvenile court's order to the Supreme Court of Nebraska.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Nebraska Revised Statute § 43-292(2), which allows for the termination of parental rights based on a parent's neglect of a juvenile or a sibling of the juvenile, violate a parent's constitutional right to procedural due process by potentially terminating rights based solely on past neglect without considering current circumstances, or was there sufficient evidence to terminate Yolanda A.'s parental rights under this statute given the children's best interests?
Opinions:
Majority - Miller-Lerman
No, Nebraska Revised Statute § 43-292(2) does not violate a parent's constitutional right to procedural due process. Yes, there was sufficient evidence to terminate Yolanda A.'s parental rights under this statute. The Court clarified that § 43-292(2) does not permit automatic termination based solely on prior neglect of a sibling. Instead, the statute explicitly requires a showing that termination is in the 'best interests of the juvenile' involved in the current proceedings, in addition to establishing a statutory ground for termination. This 'best interests' determination necessitates a review of the parent's current circumstances and evidence presented by all parties, thereby satisfying procedural due process requirements, including notice, opportunity to defend, cross-examine, and present evidence, as outlined in In re Interest of Mainor T. & Estela T. The Court affirmed that a parent's history, including prior involuntary termination of parental rights due to neglect, is relevant evidence in assessing current parental fitness and future parenting ability, in line with In re Interest of Andrew S. and other jurisdictions. The record showed Yolanda A. received adequate notice and a full evidentiary hearing. The evidence sufficiently established both the statutory ground of neglect and that termination was in the children's best interests. Yolanda A.'s prior parental rights termination for neglect was undisputed. Current evidence showed the children's high needs, reports of physical abuse, exposure to domestic violence, Yolanda A.'s ongoing struggles with alcohol abuse, inconsistent participation in rehabilitation, missed drug tests, and her inability to effectively parent, particularly given the special needs of Sir Messiah T. and Mirage T. The Court noted that Yolanda A.'s recent rehabilitative efforts largely occurred after the State filed the petition to terminate, and even considering these, she was unable to maintain sobriety, employment, or successfully parent unsupervised. Thus, the indefinite foster care was not advisable for the children, and termination was in their best interests.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the due process requirements in parental rights termination proceedings under Nebraska law. It establishes that while a parent's history of neglect, including prior involuntary termination of rights to other children, is highly relevant and admissible evidence, it does not automatically trigger termination. The State must still demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the current best interests of the child in question, and the parent must be afforded a full evidentiary hearing to present evidence of their present circumstances. This interpretation effectively balances the state's interest in protecting children with the fundamental parental right to raise one's children, ensuring that decisions are based on a comprehensive assessment of present and past circumstances rather than solely on historical neglect.
