In re Interest of Anngelynn P. & Edrich P.

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL
(Memorandum Web Opinion)
IN RE INTEREST OF ANNGELYNN P. & EDRICH P.
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 ANNGELYNN P. & EDRICH P., CHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE.
STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE,
V.
TREVOR P., APPELLANT.
Filed August 15, 2023. Nos. A-22-907, A-22-908.
Appeals from the County Court for Dawson County: JEFFREY M. WIGHTMAN, Judge.
Affirmed.
Derek L. Mitchell, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
R. Hayley Huyser, of Hart, Huyser & Miller, P.C., L.L.O., guardian ad litem.
PIRTLE, Chief Judge, and MOORE and RIEDMANN, Judges.
PIRTLE, Chief Judge.
INTRODUCTION
Trevor P. appeals from the county court for Dawson County sitting as the juvenile court
which terminated Trevor’s parental rights to his two children, Edrich P. and Anngelynn P. Trevor
challenges the juvenile court’s findings with regard to both the statutory grounds for termination
and the best interests of the children. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
-1-
BACKGROUND
On March 5, 2021, the State filed a juvenile petition alleging that Anngelynn and Edrich
were children as defined by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) (Cum. Supp. 2022), to wit they were
children
who are homeless or destitute, or without proper support through no fault of their parent;
. . . lack proper parental care by reason of the fault or habits of their parent . . . whose parent
. . . neglects are refuses to provide proper or necessary subsistence, education, or other care
necessary for the health, morals, or well-being of such juveniles; or who are in a situation
or engage in an occupation dangerous to life or limb or injurious to the health or morals of
such juveniles.
Trevor was identified as the custodial parent of the children. The children’s mother, Shanna P.,
was also listed on the petition, however, her parental rights are not at issue in this appeal, and she
will be discussed only as necessary to resolve Trevor’s claims.
The juvenile court entered an ex parte order placing the children in the temporary custody
of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The court noted in that order
that law enforcement had conducted a welfare check on the children in response to a report from
Shanna that Trevor was homeless and without employment. The children were located at their
grandparents’ home in Cozad, Nebraska, but Trevor was not present. Both children were reported
to be “dirty” and “had a bad odor about them,” and the conditions of the home were reported to be
“cluttered and dirty” with “a strong odor of dog feces and urine throughout the house.”
Responding officers determined to remove the children based upon the “unlivable
condition of the house.” Trevor reportedly “arrived at the police station irate and unwilling to have
a conversation with the authorities . . . yelling and swearing and causing a scene.” The children
were placed in the care of Nicholas B. and Michaela B., a foster family well acquainted with the
children due to a prior placement and continued contact thereafter. The children remained placed
with Nicholas and Michaela throughout the remainder of the juvenile court proceedings.
Trevor appeared before the juvenile court and entered a plea of denial to the allegations in
the juvenile petition. The juvenile court ordered DHHS to arrange for “reasonable visitation”
between Trevor and the children. On May 3, 2021, DHHS caseworker, Diana Lopez, wrote a letter
advising the court that monthly supervised visitation would be set up shortly. However, on May
13, Lopez wrote another letter advising the court that supervised visitation would be “stopped
immediately due to the therapeutic recommendation” of Edrich’s therapist, Jason Dillard.
Dillard subsequently wrote a letter explaining that Edrich had been exhibiting “significant
and problematic behavior at his daycare and preschool.” Dillard noted a correlation between an
increase in these behaviors and an increase in visitation with his parents, adding that such “is an
indicator that [Edrich] feels unsafe when he is around [his parents] . . . and he goes into a survival
mode focusing on protecting himself.” Thus, Dillard was “strongly advocating . . . that all visits
stop occurring with both parents until a confirmed change can be measured either through
substance testing, individual counseling, stability in their personal lives, or something else along
those lines.” Dillard further indicated he was open to facilitating therapeutic visits with either or
both parents.
-2-
The evidence adduced at the adjudication hearing revealed that Trevor had been evicted
from his home and that the children went to stay, at least temporarily, with Trevor’s parents in the
home where law enforcement discovered them on March 5, 2021. Responding officer, Thomas
Twyford, testified to his observations of the conditions in the home and his ultimate decision to
remove the children out of concern for their safety. DHHS’ initial assessment worker, Victoria
McDonald, testified that she first made contact with the children at the police station and they both
“appeared dirty . . . [t]heir hair was unkempt . . . I believe that [Anngelynn] had lice at the time.”
Michaela later confirmed that when the children were placed with her, they “were very dirty . . .
smelled badly . . . both had very severe cases of lice . . . [and] they were very frequently ill with
runny noses and coughs and throwing up.”
McDonald recalled that Trevor “was extremely upset” when he arrived at the police station,
and he “was yelling . . . yanking open the doors . . . [and] you could hear him hitting stuff when
he was outside the police station.” In light of Twyford’s observations of the home and Trevor’s
behavior, McDonald determined that it was necessary to remove the children for “at least” 48
hours. Following her initial assessment, McDonald testified that she handed the case off to DHHS
caseworker, Kylee Hoffmaster.
Hoffmaster testified to previous involvement with this family, including the temporary
removal of Edrich in 2016 and a subsequent intake in July 2020. Hoffmaster testified that DHHS
received an additional intake in February 2021, regarding concerns of the living conditions in
Trevor’s home. Hoffmaster recalled some of those concerns being “cigarette butts, other items of
drug paraphernalia laying around the home, as well as rotten food on the floor and the table that
were accessible to the children.” Hoffmaster nevertheless determined that the children were safe
at that time because Trevor “had a friend at the home who was willing to clean up some of the
things that were of a concern . . . and was able to also assist in caring for the kids because [Trevor]
was visibly upset at the time of contact.”
Hoffmaster testified that in the present case, after “multiple phone calls” and nearly two
weeks, Trevor came to her office to discuss the juvenile petition that had been filed. At that time,
Trevor did not provide an address for a permanent residence and stated only that he “was staying
with a friend in Kearney . . . [t]hat was the most information that he would provide me.” Hoffmaster
recalled that “[w]hen I tried to address concerns with him, he became visibly upset, left the office,
and I didn’t hear back from him for several days.” With respect to employment, Trevor informed
Hoffmaster that he was not employed, and he explained that “due to COVID and some issues with
being ill and the children being ill [he] had been laid off and had not found employment since the
layoff.”
Hoffmaster testified that she attempted to discuss the services available “to help [Trevor]
reunify with the children” but that Trevor “became upset when I began to talk with him about the
concerns for mental health and the conditions of the home, employment, housing, and then he left
the office.” Hoffmaster recalled that Trevor was “shaking, teary-eyed, [and] started to raise his
voice.” This was concerning to Hoffmaster because it “was similar behavior that I had seen when
I had met with [Trevor] in February.” Hoffmaster testified that to her knowledge, as of the
adjudication hearing, Trevor still had not provided DHHS with a permanent address.
DHHS caseworker, Lopez, testified that she took this case over from Hoffmaster around
May 1, 2021. Lopez testified to the letters discussed above regarding the status of visitation
-3-
between Trevor and the children. In addition to the content of the letters, Lopez noted that Trevor’s
address in the DHHS system remained his parents’ address where the children were discovered in
March. With regard to Lopez’s attempts to contact Trevor after becoming the case manager, she
testified that she “tried to call him. I would leave him voicemails, and I also would send him text
messages.” Lopez testified that when she did make contact with Trevor, he stated he was living in
Kearney but did not provide an address.
The juvenile court adjudicated the children under § 43-247(3)(a) and found that they should
remain in their current placement. The court further ordered Trevor to work with DHHS to move
forward with therapeutic visitation as referenced in Dillard’s letter to the court and ordered DHHS
to pay for “any evaluations” that Trevor was willing to participate in.
The next hearing occurred on June 30, 2021. The court received the DHHS case plan and
court report dated June 25, 2021. Therein DHHS reported that therapeutic visitation had been
arranged with Dillard and that Trevor “attended one visit, unannounced” on June 2, 2021. Dillard
reported to DHHS that he had a conversation with Trevor following that session in which Trevor
seemed to be “blaming the department for his situation” and “implying he was not interested in
working with the department.” Dillard further reported that Edrich “had behaviors” at daycare after
the visit, and Dillard again requested that visitation stop “to help Edrich with his behaviors as well
as Trevor to address his mental health needs before progressing back to visitation.” DHHS further
reported supplying Trevor with referrals for mental health evaluations, but that evaluation had not
been done.
The guardian ad litem for the children, Hayley Huyser, also prepared a report dated June
30, 2021. Therein, Huyser opined that “Trevor is in denial that this case is even needed” and
reported that he spent the majority of the most recent team meeting “arguing and talking over
everyone.” Huyser believed it was “evident that Trevor needs therapeutic care before he is capable
of parenting his children and maintaining that role.” Huyser advocated for suspending supervised
visitation until Trevor made therapeutic progress and “Edrich’s behaviors are no longer impacted
by seeing his dad.”
At a hearing in September 2021, the juvenile court received the DHHS case plan and court
report dated September 28, 2021. Therein, DHHS reported that supervised visitation had started
again at the end of August 2021, after being suspended over the summer. Visits reportedly went
well, although it was also reported that both children began experiencing incontinence both before
and during visits, and Edrich had been “more anxious” since visits began. DHHS noted that the
concerns regarding the children’s behavior arose only after visits with Trevor recommenced.
DHHS further reported that Trevor had completed an “urgent needs assessment” and was
recommended to seek individual counseling. While Trevor started seeing a therapist, he was
reported to be “not consistent with the counseling,” as his last visit was on July 13, 2021.
Huyser similarly noted a regression in the children’s behavior “since reintroducing visits.”
While Huyser stopped short of recommending that visits be suspended again, she noted that “the
team is watching closely to ensure we are providing the needed supports to the kids before and
after visits.” Huyser further reported as follows:
I have no doubt that Trevor loves his children, however, he has continually put them
in unsafe situations that have caused severe harm to them emotionally. We have not seen
any improvements made as to Trevor’s mental health and question his stability due to his
-4-
most recent job changes, vehicle issues, and arrests. [Dillard] suggests that the children’s
emotional health will not improve with their father and continued visits until Trevor is on
the path to getting healthy. We are still not certain where he is living and visits continue to
be out in the community. Trevor is still in denial as to why this case came into care. Team
meetings are largely unproductive as Trevor is incredibly defensive and combative with
the team. I am hopeful that Trevor seeks counseling and takes it seriously.
At the next hearing in January 2022, the juvenile court received the DHHS case plan and
court report dated December 22, 2021. Therein, in addition to reiterating its prior
recommendations, DHHS added a recommendation that Trevor “show sobriety for 90 days.”
DHHS reported that Trevor began weekly drug testing on December 5, 2021, and the first results
were positive for “THC and Methamphetamine.” Trevor reported that THC was not a problem and
was “the only coping skill that helps him with his anxiety.” Trevor’s theory as to the
methamphetamine was “that his neighbors might [be] using methamphetamine and it is seeping
through the walls.”
DHHS further reported that Trevor was “attending therapy consistently on a weekly basis”
and “his treatment plan is working on getting his kids back.” Although, DHHS reported the
following from Trevor’s therapist:
Trevor has been angry in sessions recently due to not feeling heard . . . she has worked with
Trevor on other coping skills but Trevor is adamant about them not working for him. . . .
[A]nything she has mentioned for Trevor to try he says doesn’t work and Trevor stated that
if he is able to buy CBD in the stores there should be no issues with it . . . she talked about
THC not being legal and how that could affect Trevor and his goals on getting the kids
back.
Huyser reported that visits appeared to be going well. However, Huyser also noted Trevor’s
positive drug test, adding that drug testing was ordered following a criminal charge of marijuana
possession. Huyser ultimately reported that “I am not convinced Trevor is able or willing to make
the changes necessary to provide safe, stable environment for his children.” Huyser emphasized
Trevor’s “expressed need for coping with CBD oil that contains THC, his continued defensiveness
with the team regarding his needs and those of his children, [and] his erratic behaviors at team
meetings.” Huyser requested that the juvenile court order a co-occurring evaluation “regarding
[Trevor’s] mental health and substance abuse.”
At the next hearing in March 2022, the court received the DHHS case plan and court report
dated March 22, 2022. Therein, DHHS reported that Trevor had progressed to “9 hours a week of
[supervised] parenting time” to occur “at his apartment in Grand Island.” DHHS reported that “the
team would like to see Trevor address his mental health before considering unsupervised
visitation.” Trevor’s therapist reported to DHHS on March 17, 2022, that Trevor “has not been
consistent and the last time she spoke to him was [February 15].” Otherwise, the therapist did not
have much to report to DHHS, “as she believes counseling is not beneficial for Trevor due to him
feeling his ways are the right ways and nothing else will work . . . it is difficult for him to take any
responsibility . . . she feels [Trevor] is not honest at all.” Huyser’s guardian ad litem report echoed
-5-
the reports of DHHS and emphasized Trevor’s unaddressed mental health needs and reluctance to
accept responsibility.
In addition to receiving the March 2022 court reports, the juvenile court heard the
testimony of Dillard, DHHS caseworker, Olivia Prentice, and Trevor. Prentice testified that Trevor
had made “minimal” progress toward unsupervised visitation and that the approved parenting time
would cease due to Trevor moving out of his Grand Island apartment and planning to live “with a
friend” in Kearney.
Dillard testified that the instability in Trevor’s behavior and circumstances was an ongoing
cause of anxiety in Edrich. While Dillard believed that Edrich had made significant progress in
understanding and processing his emotions, Edrich continued to report a sense of instability and
unpredictability with respect to Trevor. Dillard described Edrich’s attachment to his father as
“ambivalent or resistant” meaning that Edrich “knows that his father has been the [sic] majority of
his time throughout his life; however, it has not been consistently safe for Edrich.” Dillard
observed that Edrich had been coming home from visits with “stomachaches,” and Dillard testified
that he had come to understand those stomachaches “as a physical representation of anxiety.”
Dillard explained that the stomachaches present right after as opposed to during visits because
Edrich is “in a heightened state of anxiety during the visits, which is allowing him to stay surface
level and not cause any problems during the visit. And then when he leaves the visit, he’s able to
relax. And then the adrenaline dump happens, which manifests as a stomachache for Edrich.”
Dillard testified that he no longer believed therapeutic visits with Trevor would be
beneficial due to “the defensiveness that Trevor experiences during those sessions when we start
talking about the things that have disrupted the development for Edrich.” Dillard explained further
that “[i]t’s got to be a mentality from the parent and a willingness to accept that in order to make
repairs . . . they have to be different.” However, Dillard had not observed that mentality in Trevor,
and Dillard opined that “[T]revor needs to get in and talk with someone . . . to get his mental health
under control.”
On his own behalf, Trevor confirmed that he was moving out of his apartment and was
“trying to get a place” in Cozad. Trevor testified that “I don’t have a mental health issue” and
indicated that there is nothing he would do differently “skill-wise or as a parent relationship” if he
were to get the children back. Huyser questioned Trevor on whether he understood how his
behavior and circumstances “could be contributing to some of [the children’s] stress and anxiety.”
Trevor responded, “Yes, I do . . . but to me as long as the kids have food, water, electricity, and a
roof over their heads and a bed to sleep in, really I don’t see where there’s a big concern about it.”
The juvenile court ultimately adopted the recommendation of DHHS to add a secondary
permanency objective of adoption. The court noted that the case had been open for roughly 12
months and “not a lot of progress has been made.” The court found Dillard’s testimony persuasive
and emphasized the work needed to repair the parent-child relationship and restore a sense of safety
for the children when they are with Trevor.
On June 8, 2022, Prentice wrote a letter advising the court that all visits between Trevor
and the children would be suspended as of June 7, 2022. Prentice also relayed the following
recommendation from Dillard in that regard:
[O]ver the past couple of months there has been a slow regression from both Edrich and
Anngelynn and this has been occurring in the home, in the school and daycare setting, and
-6-
it has been observed during the visits as well. After reviewing my notes along with
consultation with a psychologist, I’m making the recommendation to immediately cease
all visitations for Edrich and Anngelynn with both Trevor and Sharanna.
At the next hearing in early July 2022, the court received the DHHS case plan and court
report dated June 29, 2022. Therein, DHHS recommended that the permanency objectives be
modified to a primary objective of adoption and a secondary objective of reunification. DHHS
reported a reemergence of “concerning behaviors” from Edrich including almost daily accidents
“where he was wetting and pooping his pants.” DHHS reported that Anngelynn had also been
“having accidents soiling her pants frequently . . . [and] has struggled emotionally with any
changes in planned visitation.” Those behaviors led to Dillard’s recommendation in early June to
stop visits, and DHHS relayed the following update from Dillard as of June 29:
Since stopping visits with both parents Anngelynn and Edrich’s behaviors have reduced to
almost nothing. Neither child has had any accidents in the past three weeks and Edrich’s
negative self-talk and aggressive behavior has stopped completely. It seems as though
stopping visits has taken away all of the fear and anxiety the kids were experiencing. . . .
I’m continuing to see them weekly for now and I have been able to have a good
conversation with Sharanna about the recommendations however I have not been able to
get ahold of Trevor.
DHHS further reported that Trevor had been compliant with drug testing but that each test
continued to test positive for THC. Trevor had not yet obtained safe and stable housing, as he
“reported that he has been living with friends and his biological mother and father in Cozad.”
Trevor reported employment with a different employer at each monthly team meeting. DHHS
observed that “[w]ithin the reporting period team meetings have not been productive. . . . Trevor
continues to be argumentative about most of his goals and reports he still doesn’t know why the
children were removed.” DHHS reported on one specific incident between Trevor and Prentice in
which law enforcement was called to intervene, and Prentice cancelled the visit that day due to
Trevor’s “very erratic behaviors.” Trevor reported to DHHS that he was attending biweekly
counseling sessions with a new therapist. Prentice testified that Trevor’s therapist had
recommended that he obtain a psychological evaluation, but that evaluation had not been done.
Huyser’s report echoed the concerns of DHHS regarding the children’s behaviors and
referenced Dillard’s assessment as to how the children’s “insecure attachment” to Trevor was
contributing to those behaviors. Huyser further opined that “Trevor has not demonstrated any
change from previous behaviors; therefore, this insecure attachment is dangerous to Edrich and
Anngelynn.” Huyser emphasized Trevor’s own mental health needs and his refusal to take
appropriate action in that regard. Huyser went further than DHHS and recommended that the
permanency objective of reunification be abandoned altogether.
The juvenile court adopted DHHS’ recommendation to modify the permanency plan to a
primary objective of adoption and a secondary objective of reunification. The court further noted
that the case had been open for more than 15 months and found no exception to the filing of a
motion for termination of Trevor’s parental rights. Although, the court did order “some level of at
least therapeutic visitation to start again.”
-7-
The State filed a motion to terminate Trevor’s parental rights in early August 2022. The
motion alleged that termination was in the best interest of the children and that statutory bases for
termination existed under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292(6) and (7) (Reissue 2016). The hearing on that
motion was held on September 8. Numerous witnesses testified to the nature of the children’s
problem behaviors, including that such behaviors were significantly more severe following visits
with Trevor. Additionally, DHHS caseworkers testified at length regarding Trevor’s lack of
progress and his consistent refusal to cooperate with DHHS or take accountability for his role in
the children’s removal.
Dillard testified regarding his recent attempts to implement therapeutic visits in accordance
with the court’s order that some level of therapeutic visitation start again. However, Dillard
observed that such visits were generally unproductive due to difficulty engaging Trevor in the
process. Dillard became concerned about the children’s regression to behaviors that had “reduced
significantly” during periods of time that visits were suspended. Dillard testified that “[a]ll the
ways that I have tried to work with Trevor to address . . . the traumas the kids have gone through,
have been met with defensiveness, hostility, denying.” For example, Dillard recalled a recent
“parent feedback session” to discuss the regression in the children’s behavior, and within “maybe
ten minutes,” Trevor “started blaming me and getting very frustrated, blaming [DHHS], blaming
the team, and eventually walked out of the office.”
Because Trevor was not receptive to Dillard’s feedback, Dillard testified that he was forced
to “basically stop challenging [Trevor] in the hopes that he might start opening up,” but that never
happened. Due to this lack of progress, Dillard could not recommend that it would be in the
children’s best interests to continue therapeutic visits with Trevor. Dillard added that “[a]t this
point I don’t know if there is anything else I can do.” Dillard opined that removing the children
from their stable environment with Nicholas and Michaela and placing them with Trevor at that
point in time “would cause irreparable harm” and would likely cause “severe regression in their
behaviors and emotional regulation.” Dillard further opined that termination of Trevor’s parental
rights was in the best interests of the children.
The DHHS case manager at the time of the termination hearing, Alyssa Schneider,
reiterated many of the concerns already discussed, including that Trevor continued to test positive
for THC and that the children had regressed in their behaviors after therapeutic visits restarted.
Schneider further testified that DHHS was not contemplating any other form of visitation at that
time. Schneider ultimately expressed the position of DHHS that termination of Trevor’s parental
rights was in the best interests of the children. Following Schneider’s testimony, the State rested
its case.
Thereafter, a number of Trevor’s friends and family members testified to their observations
of Trevor with his children. Generally, each of the witnesses testified that Trevor seemed to have
a positive relationship with his children and was able to provide for their basic needs. However,
the testimony was largely limited to observations from prior to the children’s removal in March
2021. On his own behalf, Trevor maintained that he had done “nothing wrong” and suggested that
whatever trauma the children had experienced was the result of DHHS intervention.
The juvenile court took the matter under advisement and entered a written order
terminating Trevor’s parental rights in November 2022. With respect to the allegations under
§ 43-292(6), the court found that Trevor “generally failed to meet the goals of the case plan.” The
-8-
court noted Trevor’s persistent refusal to cooperate with DHHS and other service providers, adding
that “offers of assistance [were met] with an attitude of belligerence and anger.” While the court
acknowledged that Trevor had been attending therapy sessions, it found that Trevor nevertheless
failed to “demonstrate any significant improvement in his mental health, his ability to manage his
anger, or his ability to properly parent his children.” Altogether, the court found clear and
convincing evidence in support of the allegations under § 43-292(6), as reasonable efforts had
failed to reunify the family. The court also found clear and convincing evidence in support of the
allegations under § 43-292(7), as there was no dispute that the children had been in an out of home
placement for 15 or more of the most recent 22 months.
With respect to the best interests of the children, the court noted Trevor’s lack of progress
despite over 18 months of juvenile court involvement. The court emphasized the testimony as to
the negative impact that visitation had on the children, as well as Dillard’s unsuccessful attempts
to implement therapeutic visits with Trevor. The court noted that it found Dillard’s testimony “to
be persuasive and compelling as to the harm which would be inflicted on the children were they
to be reunified with [Trevor].” Ultimately the court found that Trevor “has repeatedly
demonstrated that he does not have the skill or judgment to provide for the emotional, behavioral
and physical needs of the children.” Thus, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that
termination of Trevor’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children. Trevor appealed.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Trevor assigns that the juvenile court erred in (1) finding that reasonable efforts failed to
correct the conditions leading to the removal and adjudication of the children, (2) determining
Trevor was unfit and that it was in the best interests of the children that his parental rights be
terminated primarily because the children had been in out of home placement for 15 or more of
the most recent 22 months, and (3) finding that it was in the children’s best interests to terminate
Trevor’s parental rights.
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). However, when the evidence is in conflict, an appellate
court may consider and give weight to the fact that the juvenile court observed the witnesses and
accepted one version of the facts over another. Id.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. See In re Interest of Donald B. &
Devin B., 304 Neb. 239, 933 N.W.2d 864 (2019).
Statutory Grounds for Termination.
Trevor first assigns, restated, that the juvenile court erred in finding clear and convincing
evidence of statutory grounds for termination under § 43-292(6). However, on appeal, Trevor
“does not dispute that the children were in out of home care for more than fifteen months out of
-9-
the most recent twenty-two months.” Brief for appellant at 11. Section 43-292(7) operates
mechanically and does not require the State to adduce evidence of any specific fault on the part of
the parent. See In re Interest of Mateo L. et al., supra. Any one of the bases for termination codified
by § 43-292 can serve as a basis for termination of parental rights when coupled with evidence
that termination is in the best interests of the children. In re Interest of Leyton C. & Landyn C.,
307 Neb. 529, 949 N.W.2d 773 (2020). Thus, we conclude the State met its burden to prove
statutory grounds for termination under § 43-292(7), and there is no need to address Trevor’s
arguments under § 43-292(6).
Trevor’s second assignment of error alleges that the juvenile court “erred in finding that
the length of time the children were out of home was proof of parental unfitness.” Brief for
appellant at 11. However, we disagree that the juvenile court made any such finding. To the
contrary, the juvenile court explicitly noted in its order that “[t]he amount of time a child remains
in out of home foster care, alone, does not prove a parent’s unfitness,” and the court emphasized
the need for “clear and convincing evidence of current existing circumstances which show
termination is nonetheless in the child’s best interest.” We find no merit in Trevor’s second
assignment of error.
Best Interests.
Lastly, Trevor assigns that the juvenile court erred in finding that termination of his
parental rights was in the best interests of the children. Trevor’s primary argument is that the
juvenile court “placed undo emphasis” on Dillard’s testimony. Brief for appellant at 12. However,
Trevor fails to provide any reason as to why the juvenile court should have weighed Dillard’s
testimony any differently. Considering and giving weight to the fact that the juvenile court
observed the witnesses, we find no error in the court’s consideration of Dillard’s testimony as it
relates to the best interests of the children.
Moreover, even without Dillard’s testimony, the record is clear that Trevor failed, despite
ample opportunity, to rehabilitate himself and meaningfully address the safety concerns that
resulted in the children’s removal. When a parent is unable or unwilling to rehabilitate himself or
herself within a reasonable period of time, the child’s best interests require termination of parental
rights. In re Interest of Leyton C. & Landyn C., supra. Furthermore, children cannot, and should
not, be suspended in foster care or be made to await uncertain parental maturity. In re Interest of
Alec S., 294 Neb. 784, 884 N.W.2d 701 (2016).
Throughout the entirety of the present case, Trevor failed to understand the reasons for the
children’s removal and refused to accept responsibility for his role in that regard. While there was
evidence that Trevor loved his children and that his children had formed an attachment to him, the
evidence also showed that that attachment was unhealthy and harmful to the children. Despite the
repeated efforts of DHHS caseworkers and the children’s therapist, Trevor demonstrated that he
was either unwilling or unable to take the actions necessary to repair the parent-child relationship
and establish a safe and stable environment for the children. Upon our review of the record, we
conclude the State met its burden to prove that termination of Trevor’s parental rights was in the
best interests of the children.
- 10 -
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the juvenile court terminating Trevor’s
parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
- 11 -