Background
X’alaya C.S. and Yahshua C.S. are twins born in November 2017. Their father, Yahshua C., was incarcerated at the time of their birth and again from 2018 to roughly 2021 following a robbery conviction. In August 2022 he was arrested on a charge of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, and in June 2023 he was sentenced to 8 to 10 years’ imprisonment with a projected release date of February 2029 and parole eligibility beginning August 2027. The children were removed from their mother’s care in April 2023 and have remained in out-of-home placement since.
The State filed a termination petition in March 2025 under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292(2), (6), and (7). The record revealed significant case-management failures by the first DHHS worker assigned to the case: she incorrectly believed she could not visit Yahshua in prison without him first completing a visitation request form, her contact information was confiscated from his cell, and the release-of-information form she mailed to him never arrived. As a result, Yahshua had no in-person or video visits with the children and no documented DHHS services during the first roughly two years of the case.
After a new case manager took over in March 2025, Yahshua promptly completed a release-of-information form, maintained regular contact with DHHS, and completed options counseling. However, when the new worker offered to arrange visits with the children, Yahshua declined on multiple occasions, saying his schedule at the facility was too unpredictable and he preferred to wait for a potential transfer. He had not seen the children since August 2022 and sent them no gifts, cards, or letters throughout the case. The juvenile court terminated Yahshua’s parental rights in November 2025, and he appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the termination order following a de novo review of the record. The court found the statutory basis under § 43-292(7) clearly satisfied: the children had been in out-of-home placement for more than 15 of the most recent 22 months, a provision that operates mechanically and requires no showing of parental fault. Because one statutory ground was proven by clear and convincing evidence, the court declined to separately analyze the § 43-292(2) and (6) grounds.
On best interests and parental fitness, the court acknowledged that much of Yahshua’s failure to engage with services during the first case manager’s tenure was attributable to circumstances largely outside his control — chiefly the DHHS worker’s own erroneous belief about visitation requirements. Nevertheless, the court found those circumstances did not excuse his complete failure to communicate with the children by any means for more than a year. After the children were placed with their foster parent in March 2024, Yahshua sent no letters, cards, or gifts. The court held that parental obligation requires a continuing interest in one’s children and a genuine effort to maintain communication, and Yahshua’s conduct fell short of that standard.
The court further noted that Yahshua’s incapacity to parent stems from voluntary criminal conduct, that he has been incarcerated for the majority of the children’s lives, and that even optimistic projections leave the children waiting at least 21 more months for possible parole. The court concluded that requiring the children — already in foster care for 2½ years at the time of termination — to remain in out-of-home placement pending an uncertain release date would not serve their need for permanency and stability.
Key Takeaways
- Nebraska § 43-292(7) is a mechanical trigger: 15 months of out-of-home placement in the most recent 22 months establishes a statutory basis for termination without any independent showing of parental fault.
- DHHS case-management errors that limit a parent’s access to services will be considered in the best-interests analysis, but they do not shield a parent who independently fails to make any effort to communicate with the children through available means such as letters or cards.
- Incarceration caused by voluntary criminal conduct is a proper — though not sole — consideration in the fitness and best-interests inquiry; repeated criminal conduct that keeps a parent absent for the majority of a child’s life weighs heavily toward termination.
- Children’s need for permanency and stability means courts will not require them to remain in indefinite foster care awaiting a parent’s release at an uncertain future date, even when that parent expresses genuine love and a desire to parent.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates how Nebraska courts balance equitable consideration of systemic barriers — including DHHS errors — against a parent’s independent obligation to maintain meaningful contact with their children. Practitioners representing incarcerated parents should advise clients not to wait passively for agency outreach; proactive communication with children through letters or cards can be critical evidence of parental interest when in-person services break down.
The case also reinforces the practical weight of § 43-292(7)’s time-based ground. Because it requires no fault finding, it can stand alone as a basis for termination even where other statutory grounds are contested. Combined with the children’s-permanency rationale, this ruling signals that Nebraska appellate courts will sustain terminations where the timeline of incarceration — however involuntary in some respects — leaves no realistic prospect of reunification within a timeframe consistent with the children’s developmental needs.