In re Interest of Rodney D. ( 2023 )

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL
(Memorandum Web Opinion)
IN RE INTEREST OF RODNEY D. ET AL.
NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION
AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. § 2-102(E).
IN RE INTEREST OF RODNEY D. ET AL., CHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE.
STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE,
V.
RANDY D., APPELLANT, AND CHRISTINA T., APPELLEE.
Filed October 10, 2023. No. A-23-143.
Appeal from the Separate Juvenile Court of Douglas County: VERNON DANIELS, Judge.
Affirmed.
Brady J. Hoekstra, of M|F Law Omaha, for appellant.
Shinelle Pattavina, Deputy Douglas County Attorney, for appellee State of Nebraska.
BISHOP, ARTERBURN, and WELCH, Judges.
ARTERBURN, Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Randy D. appeals from an order of the separate juvenile court of Douglas County which
terminated his parental rights to his minor child, Connor D. In the order, the juvenile court found
that grounds existed for termination of Randy’s parental rights pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 43-292(2), (6), and (7) (Reissue 2016) and that the termination was in Connor’s best interests.
In addition, the juvenile court overruled Randy’s motion for visitation pending appeal. In this
appeal, Randy argues that the juvenile court erred in finding clear and convincing evidence that
termination of his parental rights was in Connor’s best interests. Further, Randy asserts that
contrary to the juvenile court’s finding, continued visitation between he and Connor pending
-1-
appeal was in Connor’s best interests. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the determinations of
the juvenile court.
II. BACKGROUND
1. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Randy is the biological father of Connor, born in April 2020. Christina T. is Connor’s
biological mother, but as her parental rights are not at issue in the present appeal, she will be
discussed only as necessary to provide context. When Connor was born, Christina had open cases
with the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) concerning her three other
children, including Rodney D. Christina’s three other children were eventually placed with their
biological father, who is not Randy. As such, those three children are not involved in this appeal.
In April 2020, DHHS was informed that Christina had just given birth to Connor, that she
and her older three children were involved in juvenile court proceedings as a result of Christina’s
neglect, that she was a methamphetamine user, and that she had used methamphetamine during a
previous pregnancy. In addition to this DHHS report, hospital staff discovered drugs in Connor’s
system after he was born. Connor was immediately removed from Christina’s care due to her drug
use, her failure to communicate with caseworkers in her ongoing juvenile court cases, and her
noncompletion of court orders related to those cases. Additionally, as a result of Connor’s positive
drug test, a referral was sent to an early intervention team for a follow-up because Connor was
deemed to be at a higher risk of developmental delays, neglect, or abuse.
Randy was identified as Connor’s father after a paternity acknowledgement was signed on
April 13, 2020. Randy’s relationship with Christina is not clearly defined by the record, but it
appears that although the two were not married, Randy initially hoped to form a family with
Christina and Connor. DHHS did not release Connor to Randy’s care. Instead, Connor was placed
into a foster home on April 23. He has remained in foster care since that time.
In June 2020, Randy indicated that he wanted Connor to reside with him in his home, but
as he had never parented a newborn before, he wanted to spend time with Connor first. Case
manager Kimberly Cramer informed Randy that Connor had specific feeding needs and that Randy
would need to demonstrate he could meet those needs prior to placing Connor with him.
Additionally, Randy was instructed to attend Connor’s medical appointments. Cramer reported
that Randy failed to follow through on these requirements.
On January 15, 2021, the State filed a fifth supplemental petition which, as to Randy,
alleged that Connor was a juvenile as defined by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) (Reissue 2016).
Specifically, the petition alleged that: (1) Connor had been a ward of the state since April 2, 2020;
(2) Randy was unable to demonstrate he could care for Connor’s specific medical needs; (3) Randy
failed to attend any of Connor’s medical appointments; (4) Randy failed to consistently attend
visits with Connor; (5) Randy failed to provide proper parental care, support, and/or supervision
for Connor; (6) Randy failed to provide safe, stable housing; and (7) therefore, Connor was at a
risk for harm.
At an adjudication hearing on March 30, 2021, Randy pled no contest to the State’s
allegations that he was unable to demonstrate that he could care for Connor’s specific medical
needs, that he failed to provide proper parental care, support, and/or supervision for Connor, and
that due to his actions, Connor was at risk for harm. Pursuant to an agreement between Randy and
-2-
the State, the remaining allegations were dismissed. At the hearing, the juvenile court found that
it would be in Connor’s best interests, safety, and welfare to remain in the temporary custody of
DHHS. In the meantime, the court ordered Randy to participate in a rehabilitation plan designed
to reunify him with Connor. The primary requirements of that rehabilitation plan included
maintaining adequate housing, providing proof of stable income, attending Connor’s medical
appointments, completing a parenting program, and making other reasonable efforts to bring about
reunification.
On May 25, 2021, Connor’s guardian ad litem filed an ex parte motion to suspend visitation
between Connor and Randy until Randy and the visitation agency were properly trained on
Connor’s feeding disorder. The guardian ad litem alleged that Connor’s feeding instructions had
recently changed and that all relevant parties had to be educated on Connor’s needs before
visitations could safely resume. The court subsequently ordered that visitation be suspended
pending further order to give Randy and the visitation agency time to attend training and
instruction on how to feed Connor. On July 26, 2021, the court also ordered that Randy: (1)
continue to participate in nutrition training for liquid and solid foods related to the minor child; (2)
demonstrate proficiency with respect to the nutritional needs of Connor; and (3) continue to
provide proof of employment to the case manager.
On September 29, 2021, the court entered a review and permanency planning order. The
court found that reasonable efforts had been made to reunify Connor with Randy, but those efforts
were unsuccessful. The barriers to reunification included Randy’s lack of proficiency with respect
to meeting Connor’s feeding and nutritional needs, Randy’s lack of attendance at medical
appointments, and Randy’s sporadic attendance at visits with Connor. The court found and ordered
that the permanency objective as it related to Randy would be reunification with a concurrent plan
of adoption. It further ordered that Randy provide confirmation from his employer that during the
review period, his employment had prevented him from attending Connor’s medical appointments
as well as appointments to gain proficiency in feeding Connor.
Another review and permanency planning order was entered on January 13, 2022. Again,
reunification efforts were deemed unsuccessful, with the court citing barriers such as the length of
time Connor had been in foster care, Randy’s inconsistent attendance at visitation, and Randy’s
inconsistent efforts to learn how to provide Connor with proper medical care. The court ordered
that the sole permanency planning objective was now adoption.
On May 19, 2022, the State filed a motion to terminate Randy’s parental rights to Connor.
Randy denied the allegations contained in the motion and filed a motion to allow visitation pending
appeal. The court ordered that it would take up Randy’s visitation motion at the conclusion of the
termination hearing.
2. TERMINATION HEARING
The hearing on the State’s motion for termination of parental rights began on January 10,
2023, and continued on January 11 and 25. Jennifer Ludwig, Connor’s foster mother, testified that
Connor had been placed with her since April 23, 2020. She was familiar with Randy through
visitations. Since Connor has been placed with her, Ludwig has had to take him to a significant
number of medical appointments. In the beginning, she estimated Connor went to the doctor every
other week, but by the time of trial, he was attending appointments every other month. In 2021,
-3-
Connor was exhibiting coughing and vomiting after feeds, pulling and digging in his ears, and
nasal congestion, which was treated with specialized feeding and eventually a surgery in October
2021. Connor’s primary issue, as diagnosed by medical providers, involved his aspiration of food.
Ludwig explained that Connor’s medical issues prevent him from consuming normal foods
and eating without complications, such that his liquids must be thickened, his solid foods must be
cut into small bites, and he must be closely monitored when he is eating and drinking. Ludwig
testified that she received specialized training to thicken liquids and prepare solid foods from the
feeding team at Children’s Hospital and occupational therapist, Gillian Frost. She knew that Randy
was ordered to complete the food training as well, and that Connor had to be present for Randy’s
training session. However, Randy never contacted Ludwig to arrange a time that Connor could
attend the training with him.
In addition to his feeding needs, Connor had to wear a helmet for a period of time, which
involved visiting a helmet clinic, head scans, and daily at-home care. Connor also experienced
breathing issues; he exhibited shortness of breath, labored breathing, and unnatural sucking in and
rising of his chest and abdomen. He was prescribed two inhalers and an AeroChamber. One inhaler
was to be administered daily, while the other is considered a rescue inhaler to be used only as
necessary.
Ludwig explained that she made Randy aware of Connor’s upcoming medical
appointments through a communication notebook that was sent on visits. She began using the
notebook in March or April 2021, but before then, relied on caseworkers to notify Randy of
Connor’s medical appointments. She stated that, in total, Randy has attended roughly six
appointments, one procedure, and three therapies. There were over 20 feeding appointments that
Randy did not attend. There were approximately eight appointments regarding Connor’s medical
helmet that Randy did not attend. Connor also had four swallow studies conducted over the course
of 2 years, and Randy only attended one. Randy also attended one appointment with Connor’s
pulmonologist where an inhaler training and test was conducted. The training consisted of
identifying signs and symptoms of when to use an inhaler, which inhaler to use, how many puffs
to administer, how long to wait between puffs, and when to contact emergency personnel. Ludwig
testified that she passed the test by repeating back what the nurse had taught her, but that Randy
was unable to do so.
Randy was scheduled to have visits with Connor one time per week for two hours at a time.
When Ludwig prepared Connor for visits with Randy, Connor would hide and cry. After visits
with his father, she described Connor as tired and irritable. These visits were supervised by
personnel who were trained to monitor Connor and his food consumption. During the summer of
2022, there was a lapse of trained personnel at the visitation agency, so Ludwig offered to supervise
visits for Randy. Ludwig testified that Randy failed to consistently attend scheduled visitations
with Connor, missing a visitation once a month. When Randy attended visitations, Ludwig
observed him play with Connor, but also observed him on his phone and being inattentive to
Connor. She estimated that during a 2-hour visit, Randy was on his phone, on and off, for a total
of 30 to 45 minutes.
During one visit that Ludwig supervised, Connor left the room for roughly 2 minutes.
Randy did not follow Connor, so Ludwig went to look for him, and Randy then followed her.
During another visitation, Connor had a bowel movement, and even though Randy was aware of
-4-
the circumstances, it took him 30 minutes to change Connor. Despite having Ludwig’s contact
information, Randy has never contacted Ludwig to check on Connor’s well-being or to speak with
Connor. Randy has never provided Ludwig any financial support to assist with Connor’s care.
Frost, an occupational therapist at Just for Kids, has provided occupational therapy services
for Connor since September 2020. During her first assessment of Connor, there were significant
feeding concerns, motor concerns, and visual impairment. An individualized service plan was put
in place to monitor Connor’s development.
Roughly 6 months later, Connor was reassessed. Connor was found to be meeting motor
milestones. He also demonstrated improved visual tracking abilities, but feeding continued to be a
concern. Following a swallow study, Connor was diagnosed as aspirating thin liquids. It was
deemed necessary that Connor’s caregivers be trained on the thickening of liquids. Frost assisted
Connor’s foster family in implementing a specialized diet for Connor. In addition to thickened
liquids, the diet required that all solid foods be cut up into very small pieces. It was also imperative
that during meals, Connor be supervised by individuals trained in his dietary needs given the risk
that he could choke while eating. Such choking, in a worst case scenario, could lead to suffocation.
Frost testified she informed Randy about Connor’s medical needs and conducted his initial
trainings for both liquid and solid foods. In June 2021, Randy attended a liquid foods training and
successfully thickened liquids. Frost conducted a solid food training with Randy in August 2021,
but he was not able to gain proficiency in providing solid foods to Connor. Randy could not
determine what size of food to give Connor, struggled to supervise Connor during feeding, and did
not provide drinks when required. Another food training session was scheduled for September
2021, but Randy did not attend. Almost a year went by before Randy reached out for additional
training dates. Three dates were provided to him by Frost, but passed before Randy responded
again. At Randy’s request, two more possible dates were provided, but he again failed to schedule
and attend a second training.
Dr. Heather Thomas, a pediatric pulmonologist, has provided treatment to Connor since
August 2021 and continues to see him for periodic appointments. Connor originally went to see
Thomas in August 2021 because of aspiration. She recommended thickening his liquids to prevent
him from aspirating. In October 2021, he was still experiencing symptoms, so Thomas in
conjunction with a team of pediatric specialists removed Connor’s adenoids and performed a triple
scope procedure. The triple scope procedure allowed the doctors to look down into Connor’s lungs,
test for aspiration, and look for bacteria. Thomas testified that the results from the triple scope
were reassuring. When Connor came back in August 2022, Thomas’ recommendation was to
continue on the thickened liquids but to also attempt to wean Connor off of them.
Thomas testified that initially inhalers were prescribed to help treat Connor’s aspiration,
but as of August 2022, Connor no longer needed a regular inhaler. However, she continued to
require that his foster family keep the rescue inhaler at home. The purpose of the inhaler was to
provide immediate treatment in the event of difficulties with breathing. Thomas testified she would
have concerns if a caregiver was unable to verbalize an understanding on how to administer an
inhaler to Connor because improper administration would not place the medication where it needs
to go. Thomas stated that Connor’s primary caregiver should be educated in all his medical issues
and needs. Without proper supervision when eating, Connor would be at risk of choking,
aspirating, lung scarring, chronic cough, recurrent pneumonia, or in an extreme case, dying.
-5-
Cramer was Connor’s case manager from the time he was born until February 2022.
Cramer testified that she reviewed Randy’s court orders and discussed them with him. Cramer
confirmed that Randy had maintained safe, stable, and adequate housing and had provided her
with proof of employment. However, based on her own observations and provider reports, she
noted that Randy was not compliant with the court order requiring that he show proficiency in
meeting Connor’s feeding needs. Cramer further testified that she could never recommend that
Randy’s visits move to unsupervised due to his lack of proficiency in understanding and tending
to Connor’s medical and feeding needs and the inconsistency in his attendance at visits. Randy
canceled visits at least once a month, often citing work conflicts. Because of these inconsistencies,
she also never recommended increasing Randy’s visitation beyond one time per week for 2 hours.
Additionally, while Cramer was the assigned case manager, Randy did not complete a
parenting class as ordered by the court. Cramer testified that, in her opinion, Randy did not show
himself to be a fit parent because he failed to complete all his court orders, he was not proficient
in Connor’s feeding needs, and he was not consistent with supervised visitation. As a result, she
felt that Randy had failed to make measurable, sustained progress toward reunifying with Connor.
Cramer opined that it was in Connor’s best interests to have Randy’s parental rights terminated.
Holly Twiford became Connor’s case manager in March 2022. She testified that Randy
did not maintain consistent contact with her. She was aware of Randy’s court orders and his history
of failing to demonstrate proficiency in Connor’s nutritional needs. Twiford testified that, despite
having multiple conversations with Randy about this requirement, he never completed training for
feeding Connor solid foods prior to the termination hearing.
Twiford never recommended increasing Randy’s visitation beyond one time per week
because he failed to complete the food training. She noted that Randy’s time with Connor could
not be extended beyond 2 hours since longer visits would require meals or snacks, and Randy was
incapable of providing nutrition correctly. She did note, however, that Randy had recently
completed a parenting course.
Twiford could not recommend that Connor return to Randy’s care due to Randy’s failure
to complete necessary trainings, as well as his inconsistent attendance at medical appointments
and visitations. She did note that although some missed visitations were caused by a lack of trained
supervisors, this need for specialized supervision could have been negated had Randy completed
the feeding training. Twiford concluded that, in her opinion, Randy had not shown himself to be a
fit parent. Twiford felt that Randy failed to make measurable, sustained progress in correcting the
concerns that led to Connor’s removal and believed it would be in Connor’s best interests to
terminate Randy’s parental rights.
At the close of the evidence, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that
Connor was a child within the meaning of § 43-292(2), (6), and (7) and that the termination of
Randy’s parental rights was in Connor’s best interests. Based on the evidence presented at the
termination hearing, the court also denied Randy’s motion for visitation pending appeal. The court
held that visitation between Randy and Connor was inconsistent with Connor’s best interests,
safety, and welfare.
-6-
III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Randy alleges that the juvenile court erred in finding clear and convincing evidence that
termination of his parental rights was in Connor’s best interests. Randy further argues that the
juvenile court erred in denying his motion to allow visitation pending his appeal.
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on the record and reaches its conclusions
independently of the juvenile court’s findings. In re Interest of Ryder J., 283 Neb. 318, 809 N.W.2d
255 (2012). When the evidence is in conflict, however, an appellate court may give weight to the
fact that the lower court observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts over the
other. Id.V. ANALYSIS
1. TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS
The bases for termination of parental rights in Nebraska are codified in § 43-292. Section
§ 43-292 provides 11 conditions, any one of which can serve as the basis for termination of parental
rights when coupled with evidence that termination is in the best interests of the child. In re Interest
of Sir Messiah T., 279 Neb. 900, 782 N.W.2d 320 (2010). In order to terminate parental rights, a
court must find both requirements are proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re Interest of
Alec S., 294 Neb. 784, 884 N.W.2d 701 (2016).
(a) Statutory Factors
In his brief on appeal, Randy concedes that § 43-292(7) applies in this case, as Connor had
been in an out-of-home placement for 15 or more months of the most recent 22 months at the time
of trial. After our de novo review of the record, we agree and find that § 43-292(7) has been met.
In its order terminating Randy’s parental rights to Connor, the juvenile court found that the State
had presented clear and convincing evidence to satisfy § 43-292(2), (6), and (7). Because § 43-292
requires that the State prove only one of the enumerated statutory grounds for termination of
parental rights, if one condition is met, we need not review the other alleged bases for termination
of those rights. In re Interest of Isabel P. et al., 293 Neb. 62, 875 N.W.2d 848 (2016).
At the hearing on the State’s motion to terminate Randy’s parental rights, there was
uncontradicted evidence which demonstrated that Connor was removed from his parents’ care and
placed in a foster home on April 23, 2020, shortly after he was born. He has remained in his foster
home since that day. As such, by the time the State filed its second motion to terminate Randy’s
parental rights in May 2022, Connor had been in out-of-home placement for approximately 24
months. Accordingly, the requirements of § 43-292(7) were met.
Since there is clear and convincing evidence that termination of Randy’s parental rights
was warranted pursuant to § 43-292(7), we need not address the sufficiency of the evidence to
demonstrate that termination was also warranted pursuant to § 43-292(2) and (6). See In re Interest
of Isabel P. et al., supra.
-7-
(b) Best Interests
Having declined to address the sufficiency of the evidence demonstrating that termination
was also appropriate pursuant to § 43-292(2) and (6), we treat our discussion of whether
termination of Randy’s parental rights is in Connor’s best interests as though § 43-292(7) is the
only statutory basis for termination. When termination is based solely on § 43-292(7), appellate
courts must be particularly diligent in their de novo review of whether termination is, in fact, in
the child’s best interests. In re Interest of Aaron D., 269 Neb. 249, 691 N.W.2d 164 (2005). This
is because § 43-292(7) does not require proof of any specific fault by the parent, such as
abandonment, neglect, unfitness, or abuse, as other subsections require. In re Interest of Aaron D.,
supra. Thus, proof that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child requires
clear and convincing evidence of circumstances as compelling and pertinent as those enumerated
in the other subsections of § 43-292. In re Interest of Aaron D., supra.A child’s best interests are presumed to be served by having a relationship with his or her
parent. In re Interest of Isabel P. et al., supra. This presumption is overcome only when the State
has proved that the parent is unfit. Id. In the context of the constitutionally protected relationship
between a parent and a child, parental unfitness means a personal deficiency or incapacity which
has prevented, or will probably prevent, performance of a reasonable parental obligation in child
rearing and which has caused, or probably will result in, detriment to a child’s well-being. Id. The
best interests analysis and the parental fitness analysis are fact-intensive inquiries. Id. And while
both are separate inquiries, each examines essentially the same underlying facts as the other. Id.
The law does not require perfection of a parent; instead, courts should look for the parent’s
continued improvement in parenting skills and a beneficial relationship between parent and child.
In re Interest of Leyton C. & Landyn C., 307 Neb. 529, 949 N.W.2d 773 (2020). While the best
interests analysis is forward-looking, one’s history as a parent speaks to one’s future as a parent.
See In re Interest of Sir Messiah T., 279 Neb. 900, 782 N.W.2d 320 (2010). Further, when a parent
is unable or unwilling to rehabilitate himself or herself within a reasonable time, the best interests
of the child require termination of parental rights. In re Interest of Zanaya W. et al., 291 Neb. 20,
863 N.W.2d 803 (2015).
Randy argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that termination
of his parental rights was in Connor’s best interests. He further argues that the progress he made
during the pendency of the case and his bond with Connor prove that he is a fit parent.
Contrary to Randy’s assertions on appeal, there was clear and convincing evidence
presented at the termination hearing to demonstrate that it is in Connor’s best interests for Randy’s
parental rights to be terminated. Due to his medical conditions, Connor needs constant supervision
when eating liquid and solid foods. Thomas testified that Connor’s primary caregiver must be
educated in all his medical issues and needs, which includes knowing how to properly prepare
solid foods and monitor his food consumption. At the time of trial, Randy had still not
demonstrated that he had become proficient in the solid food training necessary to supervise
Connor when he eats. Of greater concern is that Randy has shown little motivation to acquire the
necessary skills to administer and supervise Connor’s meals. Virtually every witness who testified
to Connor’s nutritional needs voiced their concerns that Randy had never completed the food
training. Without having the training, Connor’s health is threatened. Without proper supervision
-8-
when eating, Connor is at risk of choking and aspirating. These conditions can lead to lung
scarring, chronic cough, recurrent pneumonia, and in an extreme case, death.
The same conclusion can be drawn from Randy’s failure to understand how to administer
Connor’s inhaler. Although Connor is no longer prescribed his regular inhaler, a rescue inhaler
remains needed and any adult supervising Connor must know how to administer it. Randy, as of
trial, had not been able to verbalize his understanding given by medical providers as to how or
when to administer the inhaler to Connor. Randy’s inability to administer Connor’s inhaler is a
deficiency that would prevent administration of necessary and potentially life-saving medicine.
Clearly, this inability would be detrimental to Connor’s well-being. Thus, the presumption that
Connor’s best interests are served by having a relationship with Randy is rebutted, as the State’s
evidence demonstrates that Randy is an unfit parent.
In his brief, Randy argues that while both Cramer and Twiford testified that it was in
Connor’s best interest to terminate Randy’s parental rights because he failed to complete the food
training, neither of them assisted Randy in setting up a second food training. Randy asserts that
they left it up to him to schedule the appointment and coordinate with the foster family to ensure
Connor would be present.
The evidence at trial contradicts Randy’s argument. After Randy failed the first solid food
training in August 2021, a second training was scheduled for him in September 2021, but he did
not attend. Randy then waited almost a year before reaching out for additional training dates. At
Randy’s request, Frost provided Randy with a total of five dates that Randy could have additional
training. However, Randy never responded to Frost’s invitation. The potential training dates passed
without word from Randy. Moreover, Ludwig was made aware that Connor had to be present for
Randy to complete his food training, but Randy never contacted her to arrange a training date. The
evidence shows a second food training never occurred because of Randy’s failure to effectively
communicate with willing parties. Attempts to place the blame elsewhere are not only inaccurate,
but they also demonstrate Randy’s unfitness. If Randy is incapable of making a couple of phone
calls to arrange a training date, we must question how he could ever function as a full-time parent
who places the needs of his child above his own.
Randy has also failed to show continued improvement in his parenting skills. The evidence
at trial was that Randy missed visitations with Connor approximately once a month. Although
some missed visitations were caused by a lack of trained supervisors, the need for supervisors
could have been negated if Randy had completed the feeding training. Ludwig also testified that
when Randy did attend visitations, he was often inattentive. Randy was frequently on his phone,
and Ludwig recounted two distinct visitations where Randy failed to adequately monitor Connor
and failed to attend to Connor’s needs in a timely manner. Finally, despite having Ludwig’s contact
information, Randy has never provided financial support for Connor’s care or contacted Ludwig
to check on Connor or speak with him.
Randy has attended only a small percentage of Connor’s medical appointments. When
Connor was first placed in Ludwig’s care, he was taken to the doctor every other week. At the time
of trial, Connor was being taken to the doctor approximately every other month. Despite efforts
from Ludwig to keep Randy informed of these appointments, he only attended six appointments,
one procedure, and three therapies. There were over 30 medical appointments regarding Connor’s
feeding concerns or medical helmet that Randy did not attend.
-9-
Randy’s assertion that his bond with Connor proves him to be a fit parent is unsupported
by the evidence. Ludwig testified that, prior to a visit with his father, Connor hides and cries.
Ludwig further testified that after visits with Randy, Connor is usually tired and irritable. The
evidence at trial did not demonstrate a beneficial relationship between Randy and Connor.
In short, Randy has been unwilling or unable to rehabilitate himself within a reasonable
period of time. While he has maintained adequate housing, provided proof of employment, and
eventually completed a parenting class, his failures to acquire the skills necessary to properly care
for Connor prevent him from being able to establish that he is a fit parent. Cramer and Twiford
both testified that Randy failed to make measurable, sustained progress in reunifying with Connor.
Neither Cramer nor Twiford ever recommended increasing Randy’s visitation beyond one time
per week for 2 hours. For all these reasons, we agree with the juvenile court that Connor’s best
interests require termination of Randy’s parental rights.
2. MOTION TO CONTINUE VISITATION PENDING APPEAL
Randy also argues that the juvenile court erred in finding that continued visitation between
Randy and Connor was not in Connor’s best interests. “After parental rights have been terminated,
visitation while an appeal is pending would not be in the best interests of children who already
have been in limbo for months or years.” In re Interest of J.H. et al., 233 Neb. 338, 350, 445
N.W.2d 599, 607 (1989), quoting In re Interest of Z.D.D. and N.J.D., 230 Neb. 236, 430 N.W.2d
552 (1988); see also In re Interest of Stacey D. & Shannon D., 12 Neb. App. 707, 684 N.W.2d 594(2004) (juvenile court has authority, based upon its continuing jurisdiction over children, to enter
orders that are in children’s best interests, including order with respect to continued contact with
natural parent whose parental rights are being terminated).
In this case, we find no error in the juvenile court’s decision to deny Randy visitation with
Connor pending this appeal. The juvenile court found that, based upon the evidence presented at
the termination hearing, visitation between Randy and Connor was inconsistent with Connor’s best
interests, safety, and welfare. The evidence presented at the hearing revealed that Connor has been
in foster care for essentially all of his life. This extended state of limbo does not support visitation.
Our analysis of Connor’s best interests applies equally to any inquiry regarding continued
visitation following the juvenile court’s decision. Randy’s failures to comply with the case plan
and progress toward reunification provided ample reason to deny further visitation. We find no
error in the juvenile court’s decision.
VI. CONCLUSION
Upon our de novo review of the record, we affirm the order of the juvenile court
terminating Randy’s parental rights to Connor. We also affirm the court’s decision to deny Randy
any further visitation pending appeal.
AFFIRMED.
- 10 -