State v. Charles J. (In re Interest of Isabel P.)
| Decision Date | 18 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. S–15–487,S–15–487 |
| Citation | 293 Neb. 62,875 N.W.2d 848 |
| Parties | In re Interest of Isabel P. et al., children under 18 years of age. State of Nebraska, appellant and Bradley C. Easland, guardian ad litem, appellee and cross-appellant, v. Charles J., appellee and cross-appellee. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Gail E. Collins, Deputy Madison County Attorney, for appellant.
Kathleen Koenig Rockey, of Copple, Rockey, McKeever & Schlecht, P.C., L.L.O., for appellee Charles J.
Bradley C. Easland, of Morland, Easland & Lohrberg, P.C., guardian ad litem.
Wright, Connolly, Miller–Lerman, Cassel, and Stacy, JJ.
The State appeals an order of the county court for Madison County, Nebraska, sitting as a juvenile court, declining to terminate Charles J.'s parental rights to his son, K.J., pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43–292 (Cum. Supp. 2014). The juvenile court declined to terminate parental rights, because it had not provided counsel for Charles in the proceedings leading up to the adjudication of K.J. pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43–247(3)(a) (Reissue 2008). The State appeals, and the guardian ad litem (GAL) cross-appeals.
In 2012, K.J. and his three siblings were living with their mother, Kristie P., in her mother's apartment in Norfolk, Nebraska. Kristie had recently been cited for child abuse and was struggling with addiction. Her mother called the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) out of concern for her grandchildren. Several other calls were made to DHHS as well. On October 18, DHHS removed the children from the apartment. K.J. and one of his brothers were placed in a foster home together and remained there at the time of the hearing on the State's petition to terminate Charles' parental rights.
A child adjudicated to be within the meaning of § 43–247(3)(a), and thus under the court's jurisdiction, is said to be "adjudicated."1
The State requested that the court adjudicate the four children, including K.J., and enter orders of disposition in the best interests of the children. The petition alleged, among other things, that the mother of the children, Kristie, was physically and/or verbally abusive to the juveniles, had failed to give K.J. or his school officials his prescribed psychiatric medicines, and was transient and left her children with others without telling them how long she would be gone or where she could be reached.
The first hearing for the adjudication petition took place on November 1, 2012. Although there were no allegations against him, Charles appeared at the hearing. The State indicated that it was under the impression that Charles was not very involved in K.J.'s life and suggested that a supplemental petition might be filed to include allegations against Charles.
At the hearing, the court advised both Charles and Kristie of the nature of the proceedings, the possible consequences, and the parties' rights, as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43–279.01 (Reissue 2008). Those rights include the right of a parent to have counsel appointed if the parent is unable to afford to hire a lawyer. Kristie requested and was appointed an attorney. The court declined to appoint an attorney for Charles because there were no allegations against him. It stated:
Once allegations are filed against you, or in other words, once the State starts saying some things that you did that also caused the children to be put in that position that I talked about before where they were endangered or abandoned or abused or anything of that nature, then, at that point, you would become entitled to have an attorney here and I would address that with you at that time.
The State requested that the care, custody, and control of the children remain with DHHS. Charles objected to the request, explaining that he would like to have custody of K.J. At that time, Kristie supported placement of K.J. with Charles. But the State did not, and it presented evidence against Charles. Because of the evidence adduced about Charles' criminal history, his history of drug abuse, and his failure to provide DHHS with information that would allow them to do a background check on Charles' roommates, the court ordered care, custody, and control to remain with DHHS.
Kristie eventually admitted most of the allegations within the adjudication petition and relinquished her parental rights to the children, including K.J.
Over 22 months after the adjudication, on August 27, 2014, the State petitioned to terminate Charles' parental rights. Section 43–292 allows for termination of parental rights if the termination is in the best interests of the child and at least one of the enumerated grounds within the statute exists. The State alleged that grounds (1) through (3), (6), and (7) existed. Section 43–292 provides, in relevant part:
Charles was appointed counsel on October 15, 2014. On October 28, at the first hearing on the petition to terminate, the court again informed Charles of the nature of the proceedings, the possible consequences, and his rights, as required by § 43–279.01.
On November 5, 2014, Charles filed an objection to the case plan, which contained the goal of adoption for K.J. Charles opposed that goal and also requested that the case plan set forth a more specific schedule of visitation.
A hearing on Charles' objection to the case plan was held on January 29, 2015. The DHHS worker who created the case plan testified that visitations were always the parents' responsibility to schedule. Initially, Charles was able to schedule a visit with K.J. for up to 15 hours per week, but was subsequently limited to therapeutic visits, because he had missed a number of scheduled visits and the visits were negatively affecting K.J. The foster mother testified as to K.J.'s behavior before and after visits with Charles and stated that K.J. told her he did not want visits with Charles.
The juvenile court overruled Charles' objection to the case plan and found it was in K.J.'s best interests that no visitation take place at that time. The court's order stated, "Clear and convincing evidence [was] presented that during a period of over 6 months beginning February 20, 2014, no contact took place between [Charles] and [K.J.]"
The hearing on the motion to terminate Charles' parental rights was held on February 24 and 27 and March 27, 2015. At the termination hearing, evidence was presented concerning (a) Charles' relationship with K.J. from birth to removal; (b) DHHS' consideration of placing K.J. with Charles after removal; (c) K.J.'s experience in foster care; and (d) Charles' relationship with K.J. while K.J. was in foster care, including the frequency and length of Charles' visits.
(a) Charles' Relationship With K.J. From Birth to Removal
When K.J. was conceived, Charles and Kristie were not married and both testified that they were not in a romantic relationship at the time K.J. was born. Charles testified that during the first month of K.J.'s life, he was living with Kristie and helped her with K.J. and her other children.
In 2005, when K.J. was 1–month old, Kristie and Charles were involved in a domestic violence disturbance. An investigator from the Norfolk Police Department, who had responded to the call, testified that an eyewitness said Charles hit Kristie in the face and body while she was holding K.J. Charles was convicted of third degree assault and sentenced to 20 days in jail. Kristie testified she did not have much contact with Charles after that time.
After Charles served the sentence for that assault, he was transferred to South Dakota to serve a 4–year sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Charles also served time for tampering with a witness. He was granted parole in 2006.
Kristie testified that while Charles was in jail, he did not send any cards, letters, or gifts to K.J. Even when Charles was not serving time, Kristie said that Charles did not send cards or letters to K.J. and that he never came to K.J.'s birthdays. However, Kristie testified that Charles did give K.J. a few gifts.
When Kristie was in jail, Kristie's mother had temporary guardianship of K.J. She allowed Charles, who was on parole at the time, to see K.J. as much as he wanted, until she received a call from DHHS inquiring about where K.J. was living. According to Kristie's mother, Charles had gone to DHHS to get benefits for K.J. by saying K.J. lived with him. Charles' parole was revoked in 2...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Juana L. (In re Interest of Mateo L.)
... ... & Estela T. , 267 Neb. 232, 674 N.W.2d 442 (2004). 43 Id. Accord In re Interest of Alec S. , supra note 11. 44 In re Interest of Isabel P. et al. , 293 Neb. 62, 875 N.W.2d 848 (2016). 45 See In re Interest of Alec S. , supra note 11, 294 Neb. at 796, 884 N.W.2d at 709. 46 See, ... ...
-
State v. Madison C. (In re Interest of Landyn C.)
... ... In re Interest of Isabel P. et al. , 293 Neb. 62, 875 N.W.2d 848 (2016). ANALYSIS The juvenile court found that the State established grounds for termination under ... ...
-
State v. Steven S. (In re Interest of Steven S.)
... ... A childs best interests are presumed to be served by having a relationship with his or her parent. In re Interest of Isabel P. et al. , 293 Neb. 62, 875 N.W.2d 848 (2016). This presumption is overcome only when the State has proved that the parent is unfit. Id. In the ... ...
-
Children Under 18 Years of Age. Daniel D. v. Known (In re Interest Alyssa D.)
... ... home, Angela was "passed out" and "[t]here was liquor everywhere." Because of Angela's state, the children essentially had been left alone in the house. This happened on more than one ... In re Interest of Isabel P ... et al ., 293 Neb. 62, 875 N.W.2d 848 (2016). When the evidence is in conflict, however, an ... ...