In re Interest of R.T. & A.T. ( 2024 )

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL
(Memorandum Web Opinion)
IN RE INTEREST OF R.T. & A.T.
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 R.T. AND A.T., CHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE.
STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE,
V.
ROBERT T., APPELLANT, AND KRISTINA S., APPELLEE.
Filed October 1, 2024. Nos. A-23-806, A-23-808.
Appeals from the County Court for Kimball County: RANDIN R. ROLAND, Judge. Affirmed.
Rhonda R. Flower, of the Law Office of Rhonda R. Flower, for appellant.
Sterling T. Huff for appellee Kristina S.
PIRTLE, Chief Judge, and ARTERBURN and WELCH, Judges.
PIRTLE, Chief Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Robert T. appeals the orders of the county court for Kimball County, sitting as a juvenile
court, which terminated his parental rights to his two children, R.T. and A.T. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
II. BACKGROUND
1. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Kristina S. and Robert were married in 2008. They initially lived together in Wyoming but
moved to Texas for a period to be closer to Robert’s family. In 2010, they had their first child
together, R.T. After several months, Kristina moved back to Wyoming while Robert was on an
-1-
extended assignment with the military in California. After 5 or 6 months, Robert moved to
Wyoming as well. In 2012, they had their second child, A.T.
In August 2014, Kristina received a message on Facebook from another woman, Kristina
Maes, who asked her if Robert was married. Maes informed Kristina that she lived in California
and had been in a relationship with Robert while he was there. Kristina confronted Robert with
this information and informed him that she wanted a divorce. This began a weeklong series of
conflict where Robert begged for Kristina to reconsider the divorce, hid her car keys, followed her
when she left the house, threw her into a wall, smashed her phone with a hammer, and threatened
to kill himself. Robert also disabled the Wi-Fi and did not let Kristina use her phone once she
replaced the phone he broke. This conflict escalated on August 15, when Robert restrained Kristina
with handcuffs while attempting to convince her not to divorce him. He first handcuffed her hands
behind her back before letting her go. But after she remained adamant that she wanted a divorce,
he handcuffed her left arm to her right ankle. A.T. was present throughout this incident and was
reportedly upset and crying.
Toward the end of this week, Robert convinced Kristina to accompany him to a counseling
session. After speaking with Kristina, the counselor noticed the bruises on her ankle from the
handcuffs and indicated she was afraid for Kristina’s safety. Police were called to the office and
Robert was arrested. Shortly afterward, Kristina filed for divorce and a protection order. The
protection order was granted, and Robert was initially denied any visitation with R.T. and A.T.
This changed in November 2014, when he was granted supervised visitation.
After his arrest, Robert was charged with false imprisonment, domestic assault, and
domestic battery. He eventually pled to a misdemeanor charge of unlawful contact by touch. As a
result of this conviction, he was sentenced to 1 year of unsupervised probation.
Around May 2015, while Kristina and Robert were separated pending their divorce, Robert
was in a relationship with Maes. Around this time, Robert was charged with violating his probation
for possessing firearms and knives. Additionally, he was charged with the domestic assault and
stalking of Maes. He eventually entered into a plea agreement where he pled to impedance of an
officer and was sentenced to another year of unsupervised probation. Due to these new charges,
his supervised visitation with R.T. and A.T. was suspended on June 16, 2015. This suspension
eventually ended on October 2, and his supervised visits resumed. In November 2016, Kristina
and Robert’s divorce was finalized.
In January 2017, Robert was arrested for DUI while R.T. and A.T. were in the vehicle. He
eventually entered into a plea agreement where he pled to reckless driving and received an
additional period of unsupervised probation. Around this time from 2017 to 2018, Robert was in
a relationship with another woman, Jennifer LaPratt, who he now shares two children with. These
children were respectively born toward the end of 2018 and sometime in 2020. Robert has since
had his rights terminated for the oldest child and disputes his parentage of the younger one. He
essentially denies that he is the younger child’s father because it has never been proven by a genetic
test. Robert has never provided any financial support for these children and has never met the
younger child. Although Robert and LaPratt’s relationship ended sometime in 2018, they still
interacted afterward to raise their children.
On January 18, 2019, there was an incident between Robert and LaPratt. On that date,
LaPratt was watching her and Robert’s first child, while pregnant with the second one, when he
-2-
arrived at her house with R.T. and A.T. Upon his arrival, he rammed his truck into her car pushing
it up onto the porch stairs. After he banged on the front door, LaPratt let him inside and R.T. and
A.T. went to the living room to watch TV. Robert got upset with LaPratt for locking the door and
moving his rifle. He grew increasingly angry, started throwing things, and dragged R.T. back to
the bedroom. At this point R.T. and A.T. were both crying and LaPratt became very fearful. She
ran outside with her 2-month-old child in her arms, but Robert caught her, grabbed her, and threw
her to the ground. He held her down, took the child from her arms, and proceeded to choke her by
putting his knee on her neck and his leg on her chest until she passed out.
When LaPratt regained consciousness, she fled to her vehicle while Robert was yelling at
her to get inside. After yelling at her through the car window, Robert got into his vehicle and
rammed into the rear of LaPratt’s two times. At this point, R.T. and A.T. ran outside of the house
both crying and screaming. LaPratt started her vehicle and attempted to flee, but Robert was able
to stop her by pinning her vehicle. He then got out of his vehicle and hit her window with his
hands, arms, and head in attempts to break it. LaPratt was eventually able to unpin her vehicle and
drive to a nearby bar where she asked someone to call the police. Law enforcement soon arrived,
took her statement, and followed her back to the house.
Robert was arrested and charged with strangulation of a household member, domestic
assault, child endangerment, and reckless endangerment. Following this arrest, on February 8,
2019, Robert’s supervised visitation for R.T. and A.T. was once again stayed. This stay has never
been lifted. Additionally, this event prompted the proceedings which terminated Robert’s parental
rights to his and LaPratt’s first child. In July 2021, Robert entered into a plea agreement where he
pled to reckless endangerment, child endangerment, and unlawful touching. He was sentenced to
180 days in jail and 3 years of probation.
Following Robert’s release from jail, he met his current fiance, Katina Miller, and moved
into her home in South Dakota. By all accounts, he has not had any contact with R.T. or A.T. since
January 18, 2019, and other than a handful of child support payments, has failed to pay Kristina
the court ordered child support. He now owes Kristina around $28,000 in child support.
In July 2020, Kristina moved to Kimball, Nebraska, with R.T. and A.T. However, Robert
did not learn of this move until January 2022. In July 2022, Robert had the Wyoming divorce
decree registered as a foreign judgment in the district court for Kimball County. In response, on
September 14, Kristina filed a motion to terminate Robert’s parental rights. This motion alleged
that Robert’s parental rights to R.T. and A.T. should be terminated pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 43-292(1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) (Reissue 2016) and that termination of his rights was in the
children’s best interests.
On October 5, 2022, Robert filed a complaint to modify custody in which he requested that
he be awarded sole legal and physical custody of R.T. and A.T. On November 4, the case was
transferred to the county court for Kimball County.
2. TERMINATION HEARING
A termination hearing was held in September 2023. Kristina called LaPratt, Helen Winston,
herself, James Segreaves, and Robert as witnesses. Robert called Steven Elmshaeuser, Dr. Tom
Kirk, Chuck Skinner, Zachary Martin, Lewis Bolton, Helen Scott, Joanne Zook, Miller, and
himself as witnesses.
-3-
LaPratt testified that she met Robert in 2017 and described their relationship as “[s]cary.”
She indicated that throughout their relationship he was violent and stalked her. She discussed her
feelings that she could not exit the relationship and described a situation where she got an
apartment to get away from him, but police had to get involved after he found her and broke her
door down. Although she was never certain, she believed that he placed a tracker on her vehicle
because he would consistently show up at the same places as her.
LaPratt then discussed the incident from January 18, 2019. She explained that throughout
the event, Robert was “totally different” and described his eyes as “pitch black.” She testified about
the fear she had throughout the ordeal and the effects it had on R.T. and A.T. as they watched it
unfold. She stated that she had “total fear” for their safety because they were standing on the porch
as Robert rammed his vehicle into hers and were within inches of being hit. Throughout her
narrative she stated that R.T. and A.T. were both crying and screaming because they did not
understand what was happening.
LaPratt then discussed another incident where she received a message from a woman
asking if Robert was in a relationship. This woman indicated that she was seeing Robert and sent
LaPratt screenshots of their text conversations. LaPratt stated that when she went to Robert’s house
to confront him with this information, R.T. and A.T. were in the living room. LaPratt testified that
after she showed him the messages, Robert took the phone out of her hands, threw it on the ground,
and stomped on it. She then described how Robert’s mother pushed her down the stairs and
physically forced her out of the house in front of R.T. and A.T. LaPratt testified that R.T. and A.T.
were crying during this incident because they did not understand why their grandmother and father
were fighting with her.
LaPratt next described another volatile situation when she arrived at Robert’s house while
R.T. and A.T. were present. She explained that when she arrived, she found the children
unsupervised. She testified that when she got there A.T. answered the door and no one was on the
same floor as the children. Then after looking around the house, she found Robert with another
woman in the downstairs bathroom. This was particularly troublesome because she still believed
that she and Robert were in a relationship. This led to a confrontation where his mother eventually
chased her out of the house.
LaPratt then discussed an incident that occurred after she and Robert broke up. On this
occasion, LaPratt was watching R.T., A.T., and her and Robert’s first child when he showed up.
She explained that Robert became angry when he realized that her new boyfriend was there and
was holding their child. After Robert’s emotional response prompted her boyfriend to leave, she
described how he began to criticize the dress she was wearing because he thought it was too
revealing. She testified that after berating her, he ripped the dress off her, burned it on the stove,
and threw it in the trashcan. LaPratt stated that R.T., A.T., and her other child saw him rip the dress
off her and started crying when it happened. She then described that while she was still naked and
the children were screaming and crying, Robert locked her in the bedroom.
LaPratt then testified more broadly about Robert’s relationship with R.T. and A.T. She
stated that while he still had supervised visitation, he would have them every other weekend. She
generally described how he did not take responsibility for them and would just drop them off at
her house once his visitation time began. And when he was present, she stated that he usually just
played video games by himself.
-4-
The next witness was Winston, R.T. and A.T.’s guardian ad litem. As part of preparing her
report, Winston conducted interviews with Robert and reviewed a psychological exam he took in
August 2021. She testified that throughout her interview with Robert, she determined that he was
not being truthful. She explained how Robert claimed LaPratt made up the incident when he
strangled her, claimed to only have four children when he has five, and over exaggerated his prior
involvement in the children’s lives. She then explained the results of his psychological exam which
found that he had posttraumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), and a traumatic brain injury (“TBI”)
related to his military service. The exam also found that Robert has problems with executive
functions, specifically with his memory, and hypothesized that he has more problems associated
with his diagnoses than he was willing to report.
Winston then summarized her belief that it was in R.T. and A.T.’s best interests for
Robert’s parental rights to be terminated. She explained that because they had not seen him in 4½
years, they did not remember much about him, and essentially considered him a stranger. Winston
stated that both children were ambivalent toward Robert and did not care about reestablishing
contact. She testified that A.T. was especially hesitant about reconnecting with him and had
questions about why it took so long for him to reach out. Additionally, Winston believed rekindling
relationships with Robert would be upsetting for both children because the memories they had of
Robert were not particularly positive. Specifically, she mentioned that the children remember the
2019 incident with LaPratt and associate Robert with negative memories and violence.
Kristina then testified. She first discussed her and Robert’s tumultuous relationship, how
Maes contacted her, and the handcuffing incident that led to Robert’s criminal charges in 2014.
She then explained her move to Nebraska, how Robert was not involved in R.T. and A.T.’s lives
since 2019, and how he did not pay her child support. She stated that when she lived in Wyoming,
he never voluntarily paid child support, but she was able to get a few payments by garnishing his
wages. She next stated that since moving to Nebraska in 2020, she has only received two child
support payments from him. In total, she believed that she has only received five to seven child
support payments from Robert since 2019. Copies of Robert’s child support obligations were then
received into evidence which showed that he owed $26,062.87 in child support in Wyoming and
$2,179.41 for child support in Nebraska.
Kristina then testified about her current homelife and new husband, Segreaves. She stated
that she met Segreaves 6 years ago and has two children with him. She said that R.T. and A.T. call
him “dad” and have very good relationships with him. She then explained that she did not believe
that it was in her children’s best interests to reestablish relationships with Robert. She stated it
would be “extremely mentally challenging for the kids to establish contact after four and a half
years of his absence.” She discussed how R.T. did not want visitation with Robert because he
remembers the violence associated with him and how A.T. was confused as to why Robert wanted
to spend time with them now after so many years.
Segreaves then testified. He stated that for the past 3½ years, R.T. and A.T. have called
him “dad” and consider him to be their father. He explained that he has two other children that he
visits often in Pennsylvania and that he has a 2008 criminal conviction for burglary in
Pennsylvania. He accepted responsibility for that conviction and stated that he never tried to hide
it throughout the proceedings.
-5-
Robert then testified and was asked about his children, employment history, and past
criminal convictions. He indicated that he has had no contact with R.T. or A.T. since his arrest in
January 2019, has not attempted to see them, and has generally been removed from their lives ever
since. He explained that the attorney representing him in his divorce and criminal proceedings had
advised him to resolve his criminal matters before attempting to secure visitation with them.
Additionally, he claimed that he did not attempt to reach out to R.T. and A.T. because he did not
know where they were. Because Kristina never gave him notice of her move to Nebraska, he did
not learn that his children were in a different state until February 2022. He indicated that once he
knew where R.T. and A.T. were, he attempted to contact them by calling their school, but the
school did not want to get involved due to the active stay on visitation.
In talking about his other children, Robert denied that his rights to LaPratt’s first child were
terminated and stated that he would claim LaPratt’s second child if he was proven to be the father
through genetic testing.
Robert also discussed his employment history and the $28,242.28 he owes in child support.
He discussed how he was currently self-employed as a semi-truck driver. He stated that he was
unemployed from 2021 to 2023 but received around $2,000 a month in disability benefits from the
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for his PTSD and TBI diagnoses. He did not give a reason
for why he failed to pay child support over this period but indicated he had been unable to find a
job to accommodate his treatment schedule. He stated that he has been seeing a counselor at the
VA since 2020 and participated in an 18-week prolonged exposure therapy program to help with
his PTSD. Robert testified that although his disabilities affect his speech and communication and
cause him depression and anxiety, he was still capable of full-time employment.
Elmshaeuser testified next. He was appointed as Robert’s guardian ad litem in November
2022 due to concerns regarding his mental health. He essentially concluded that Robert’s mental
illnesses did not affect his parental duties or his capacity to work.
The next witness was Kirk, a licensed therapist who conducted a Wyoming court ordered
domestic violence assessment and evaluation on Robert in October 2020. He explained his report
which articulated that although Robert had a lack of insight into some of his own behaviors, he did
not have any impulsivity or anger issues. With these findings, Kirk concluded that Robert was at
a “minimal risk of recidivism” and recommended the lowest level of treatment.
However, on cross-examination, Kirk was asked about the nature of Robert’s criminal
convictions. He indicated he was unaware of the 2014 handcuff situation involving Kristina, that
A.T. was present during that event, and that Robert threatened to commit suicide after Kristina
told him she wanted a divorce. Likewise, he was unaware of the 2015 stalking and domestic assault
incidents involving Maes, the 2017 DUI charges where the children were in the backseat, and the
incident where Robert knocked down LaPratt’s door. Kirk expressed that if he had known about
these various incidents when conducting the assessment, the results would have been different,
and he would have recommended a more intensive treatment program.
Skinner testified next and is a psychotherapist who works with a program called “Dads
Making a Difference.” This is a 12-week program that seeks to assist fathers by providing them
with job training and applicable life skills. Robert participated in this program beginning in June
2018 and was selected to be the class’s salutatorian. Skinner said that Robert was always honest
and never demonstrated he had anger issues. Skinner then explained that Robert had reached out
-6-
after the January 2019 incident with LaPratt but indicated that he was unaware of several of
Robert’s other criminal convictions.
Martin then testified. Martin operates a program called “Kids Deserve Dads” which helps
fathers build and maintain relationships with their children. Robert participated in this program in
the fall of 2018. Martin said that he thought Robert was a good dad and that he always talked about
his kids.
Bolton testified next. He worked with Robert in 2016 and became friends with him outside
of work. He essentially said that Robert’s kids loved him, and he loved his kids, but also explained
that he had not seen Robert in approximately 5 years so his perception of him was primarily based
on interactions from 2016 or 2017.
The next witness was Scott. She dated Robert for approximately 6 months beginning in
2018 and ending sometime in 2019. She stated that she never observed Robert being violent or
abusive. However, she acknowledged that she had never met any of his children and did not know
about Robert’s criminal charges from 2014 involving Kristina, his charges from 2015 involving
Maes, or about his 2017 DUI charges. And although she was dating Robert when the 2019 incident
with LaPratt occurred, Scott expressed that she was told a different story about what happened.
Zook, the attorney that represented Robert in his divorce and two of his Wyoming criminal
matters also testified. She said that Robert always asked about R.T. and A.T. and was very
interested in seeing them. But she explained that she advised Robert it was better to get past the
criminal proceedings before attempting to get visitation with his children. She discussed how
Robert posted a significant bond and that one of the conditions of that bond was to not
communicate with Kristina or their children. Accordingly, she testified to her concern that if
Robert attempted to contact the children, his bond could be revoked, and he could be exposed to
further criminal charges for violating the stay on his visitation. She expressed that Robert did not
like this advice but abided by it. She also stated that they never received any notice that Kristina
was moving the children out of state.
Miller, Robert’s fiance, then testified. Miller met Robert in August 2019, and they moved
in together several months later. This involved Robert moving to South Dakota. She generally
expressed that she has never experienced any violence, abuse, or problems from Robert. She
testified that he is kind, caring, selfless, and treats her and her teenage daughter very well. She
explained that Robert misses his children a lot and wants to see them.
After the hearing concluded, the court took the matter under advisement.
3. TRIAL COURT’S ORDER
On September 23, 2023, the county court issued its orders terminating Robert’s parental
rights to R.T. and A.T. The orders found that Kristina failed to prove § 43-292(4) and (5) by clear
and convincing evidence, but proved § 43-292(1), (2), and (3). The court further found that
terminating Robert’s parental rights was in R.T. and A.T.’s best interests.
Robert now appeals the decisions that terminated his parental rights. We have consolidated
the two appeals for purposes of our review.
-7-
III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Restated, Robert assigns the court erred by finding that Kristina met one of the statutory
grounds enumerated in § 43-292 and that terminating his parental rights was in the best interests
of R.T. and A.T.
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on the record and reaches its conclusions
independently of the findings made by the juvenile court below. In re Interest of Mateo L. et al.,
309 Neb. 565, 961 N.W.2d 516 (2021).
V. ANALYSIS
Under Nebraska law, terminating parental rights requires both clear and convincing
evidence that one of the statutory grounds enumerated in § 43-292 exists and clear and convincing
evidence that termination is in the best interests of the children. In re Interest of Jay’Oni W. et al.,
31 Neb. App. 302, 979 N.W.2d 290 (2022). Clear and convincing evidence is that amount of
evidence which produces in the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction about the existences of a
fact to be proven. Id.
1. STATUTORY BASES
Robert assigns that the juvenile court erred by finding that there was sufficient evidence to
prove the grounds set forth in § 43-292(1), (2), and (3). To satisfy these grounds, Kristina had to
respectively prove by clear and convincing evidence that Robert (1) abandoned the minor children
for 6 months or more prior to her filing the petition; (2) substantially and continuously or
repeatedly neglected and refused to give the minor children necessary parental care and protection;
and (3) being financially able, neglected to provide the minor children with the necessary
subsistence, education, or other care when legal custody of the minor children was lodged with her
and such payment was ordered by the court. § 43-292(1) through (3).
We note that although only one of these statutory bases needs to be met, given the facts of
this case, our analysis covers all three bases found by the county court. See In re Interest of Alec
S., 294 Neb. 784, 884 N.W.2d 701 (2016).
(a) § 43-292(1)
Robert first argues that the court erred in finding that he abandoned R.T. and A.T. for 6
months or more immediately prior to the filing of the petition. To prove abandonment in
determining whether parental rights should be terminated, the evidence must clearly and
convincingly show that the parent has acted toward the child in a manner evidencing a settled
purpose to be rid of all parental obligations and to forgo all parental rights, together with a complete
repudiation of parenthood and an abandonment of parental rights and responsibilities. In re Interest
of Gabriella H., 289 Neb. 323, 855 N.W.2d 368 (2014).
Whether a parent has abandoned a child within the meaning of § 43-292(1) is a question
of fact and depends upon parental intent, which may be determined by circumstantial evidence. In
re Interest of Gabriella H., supra. The 6-month statutory period for determining abandonment
need not be considered in a vacuum in a termination of parental rights action; one may consider
-8-
the evidence of a parent’s conduct, either before or after the statutory period, for this evidence is
relevant to a determination of whether the purpose and intent of that parent was to abandon his or
her child or children. See id.
In his argument, Robert contends that he went 4½ years without contacting R.T. and A.T.
because a condition of his bond prohibited such contact. Accordingly, he asserts that if he had
attempted to communicate with his children, he faced the revocation of his bond and possible
further criminal consequences. Because of these potential consequences, he states that he followed
the advice of his attorney to wrap up his criminal matters before attempting to reestablish contact.
Additionally, he argues that he was unable to maintain contact with his children because he did
not know where they lived and, unbeknownst to him, had moved to Nebraska in 2020.
For the purposes of § 43-292(1), “abandonment” is a parent’s intentionally withholding
from a child, without just cause or excuse, the parent’s presence, care, love, protection,
maintenance, and the opportunity for the display of parental affection for the child. In re Interest
of Gabriella H., supra. Just cause or excuse for a parent’s failure to maintain a relationship with a
minor child has generally been confined to circumstances that are, at least in part, beyond the
control of the parent. Id. Robert essentially argues that the bond condition which prohibited him
from contacting his children constituted “just cause.” We disagree.
While not perfectly analogous, the Nebraska Supreme Court has held that in cases
involving termination of parental rights, it is proper to consider a parent’s inability to perform his
or her parental obligations because of incarceration. In re Interest of Jahon S., 291 Neb. 97, 864
N.W.2d 228 (2015). It reasoned that although the parent’s incarceration itself may be involuntary,
the criminal conduct causing the incarceration was voluntary. See id. We believe the same logic
applies to a bond condition that prohibits a parent from communicating with their children.
Robert’s bond condition that barred him from contacting R.T. and A.T. was the result of his
criminal actions and subsequent convictions. Because those actions were voluntary, we do not
believe that the salient bond condition constitutes just cause. Therefore, the bond condition does
not prohibit us from considering Robert’s prolonged failure to fulfill his parental obligations to
R.T. and A.T.
Although a condition of Robert’s bond prohibited him from contacting his children, we
determine that the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the finding that Robert abandoned
R.T. and A.T. for 6 months or more prior to the filing of the petition. Robert has gone 4½ years
since seeing or communicating with his children. Over that period, he has only made two voluntary
child support payments, and the arrearage now amounts to more than $28,000. He has shown no
interest in his children’s education, well-being, or in maintaining any sort of relationship with
them. He has taken no responsibility for their emotional, mental, financial, or physical care. As a
result of his complete lack of any presence in their lives, both children barely remember who he is
and now consider him to be a stranger. Illustrative of Robert’s lack of effort in fulfilling his parental
obligations is that he did not even know where the children resided for nearly 2 years. While he
asserts his lack of knowledge was due to Kristina failing to notify him of their move, Robert could
have taken a variety of actions to discover their location. Because Robert has failed to provide R.T.
and A.T. with any meaningful support over the last 4½ years, we determine there was sufficient
evidence that Robert clearly and convincingly acted in a manner that displayed a settled purpose
to be rid of all parental obligations toward these two children. Therefore, the county court did not
-9-
err in finding that Robert abandoned R.T. and A.T. for 6 months or more prior to the filing of the
petition.
(b) § 43-292(2)
Robert next argues the court erred in finding that he substantially and continuously or
repeatedly neglected and refused to give R.T. and A.T. the necessary parental care and protection.
For the purposes of § 43-292(2), one does not need to have possession of the child to demonstrate
the existence of neglect. See In re Interest of Joseph S. et al., 291 Neb. 953, 870 N.W.2d 141(2015). Past neglect, along with facts relating to current family circumstances which go to best
interests, are all properly considered in a parental rights termination case under this section. Id.For similar reasons that we concluded Robert abandoned R.T. and A.T., we also determine
that he substantially and continuously or repeatedly neglected and refused to provide them with
the necessary parental care and protection. Other than a handful of child support payments, Robert
has completely failed to provide for his children over the last 4½ years. He now owes more than
$28,000 in child support and does not have a relationship with either child. Because Robert has
been absent from R.T. and A.T.’s lives since 2019 and has failed to maintain any relationship with
them, he has been fully unable to provide them with any sort of meaningful support or care.
Therefore, we conclude that the county court did not err in finding that Robert substantially and
continuously or repeatedly neglected and refused to give R.T. and A.T. the necessary parental care
and protection.
(c) § 43-292(3)
Robert next argues the court erred in finding that, while financially able, he willfully
neglected to provide necessary subsistence, education, or other care necessary for R.T. and A.T.’s
health, morals, or welfare or neglected to pay for such subsistence, education, or other care when
Kristina had legal custody, and he was ordered by the court to pay child support.
We determine the county court did not err in finding that Robert met the conditions for
§ 43-292(3). We first determine that there was sufficient evidence for the county court to find that
he was financially able to provide for his children. Although he was unemployed between 2021
and 2023, Robert had several different jobs prior to that period. Additionally, he received disability
income from the VA and now operates his own trucking company. Despite these various sources
of income over the last 4½ years, Robert has failed to pay the required child support and has not
provided R.T. and A.T. with any of the necessary supplies for their general care. In particular, he
has never provided them with any food, clothes, shoes, or health insurance. Accordingly, other
than Robert’s minimal child support payments, Kristina and her husband have borne the full
financial responsibility for raising R.T. and A.T. For these reasons, we determine the county court
did not err in finding that Robert, being financially able, willfully neglected to provide necessary
subsistence, education, or other care necessary for R.T. and A.T.’s health, morals, or welfare or
neglected to pay for such subsistence, education, or other care.
2. BEST INTERESTS AND UNFITNESS
We next consider whether the county court erred in determining that it was in R.T. and
A.T.’s best interests to terminate Robert’s parental rights. A child’s best interests are presumed to
- 10 -
be served by having a relationship with his or her parent. In re Interest of Leyton C. & Landyn C.,
307 Neb. 529, 949 N.W.2d 773 (2020). This presumption is overcome only when the opposing
party has proved that the parent is unfit. See id. The best interests analysis and the parental fitness
analysis are separate inquiries, but each examines essentially the same underlying facts as the
other. 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.In determining whether a parent is unfit, 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. Id.We determine the court did not err in finding that terminating Robert’s parental rights was
in the best interests of R.T. and A.T. Although Robert has demonstrated significant effort in
improving his life, his history of domestic violence, prolonged absence from R.T. and A.T.’s lives,
and failure to establish any sort of beneficial relationship with them favors the termination of his
parental rights.
Robert has a significant history of committing domestic violence and engaging in actions
that endangered R.T. and A.T. In 2014, he restrained Kristina in handcuffs while A.T. watched
crying; in 2015, he stalked and assaulted Maes; in 2018, he broke down LaPratt’s apartment door;
sometime around 2018 or 2019, he ripped LaPratt’s dress off of her and burned it on the stove
while R.T. and A.T. were present and crying; in 2017, Robert was arrested for DUI while R.T. and
A.T. were in the backseat; and in 2019, he assaulted LaPratt and rammed his vehicle into hers.
Notably, R.T. and A.T. watched these events unfold and were inches away from being hit by
LaPratt’s vehicle as Robert rammed into it. While these incidents took place some time ago, their
number, nature, and frequency pose obvious concerns.
More so, the timing of the 2019 incident with LaPratt is particularly worrisome as it came
after Robert began demonstrating improvements throughout 2018. While participating in Dads
Making a Difference, he earned the respect of his colleagues and was selected to speak as the
salutatorian in the October graduation ceremony. And through his involvement with Kids Deserve
Dads, Robert formed a relationship with Martin and volunteered to help the organization.
However, despite these commendable steps to improve his life, months after his graduation from
Dads Making a Difference and involvement in Kids Need Dads, Robert chased, assaulted, and
strangled LaPratt in front of R.T. and A.T.
Since that incident, Robert has continued to take steps toward personal improvement, such
as participating in counseling and enrolling in an 18-week prolonged exposure therapy program to
help his PTSD. But while Robert seems to have significantly improved and now has a positive
relationship with his fiance and her daughter, he has not put any effort into maintaining
relationships with R.T. and A.T.
The last time Robert had any contact with R.T. and A.T., they were approximately 8 and 7
years old. At the time of the hearing, they were 12 and 11 years old. Due to Robert’s extended
absence, both children are ambivalent toward him and are hesitant to rekindle a relationship with
someone they perceive to be a stranger and that they associate with violence. R.T. and A.T. now
- 11 -
consider Kristina’s husband, Segreaves, to be their dad and have not expressed great interest in
reconnecting with Robert.
Robert attempts to justify his lengthy absence from R.T. and A.T.’s lives by arguing that
he was following the advice of his attorney to not contact R.T. and A.T. while his criminal
proceedings were pending, a bond condition prohibited such contact, and the stay of visitation was
still in place. However, we observe that there is nothing in the record to support that the bond
condition was still in effect once he was sentenced, as bond conditions are typically lifted at the
conclusion of a criminal proceeding. Likewise, there is nothing in the record to support that he was
prohibited from seeking the dissolution of the stay of visitation at any point, but he failed to do so
until the current proceeding. While delaying that filing may have been strategic by his attorney, it
does not justify Robert having zero contact with his children for such a prolonged period of time.
Therefore, we do not find Robert’s arguments persuasive.
Robert has been absent from R.T. and A.T.’s lives for 4½ years. And prior to his absence,
he exposed both of them to numerous acts of violence that left lasting impacts. Since those
incidents, he has failed to provide them with any emotional, educational, or parental care. More
so, he has provided minimal financial assistance and has never gone out of his way to provide them
with any food, clothes, school supplies, or any other materials they require. As such, he has
completely failed to establish any sort of beneficial relationship between himself and his children.
With these facts, we determine that Robert’s history of domestic violence and complete failure to
maintain any relationship with R.T. and A.T. display personal deficiencies which have 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 the children’s well-being. Therefore, we
conclude that the county court did not err in finding that terminating Robert’s parental rights to
R.T. and A.T. was in their best interests.
VI. CONCLUSION
We conclude that the county court did not err in terminating Robert’s parental rights to
R.T. and A.T.
AFFIRMED.
- 12 -