Background
Christina B. is the mother of Annabella M. (born 2012) and Castiel B. (born 2016). The children were removed from Christina’s home on February 4, 2022, after the State filed a petition alleging they lacked proper parental care. The allegations included Christina’s exposure of the children to domestic violence perpetrated by her boyfriend, Jason Fisher; her knowledge that Fisher was sexually abusing Annabella; her failure to protect either child from sexual abuse by Fisher and his son, Matthew; and her continued failure to provide proper supervision and protection.
Following removal, the children were placed in foster care. Annabella disclosed that Fisher sexually abused her multiple times (anal penetration) in Arkansas. Castiel disclosed sexual abuse by Matthew. Both children developed PTSD, nightmares, night terrors, anxiety, and symptoms of depression. The State filed motions to terminate the parental rights of both Christina and Herbert M. (Annabella’s biological father) on January 31, 2024, after the children had been out of home for over 23 continuous months.
At the termination hearing (held over multiple dates between June and December 2024), evidence showed Christina continued living with Fisher until at least December 2023, ten months after the children’s removal. When caseworkers investigated, Christina tried to hide Fisher’s presence, eventually admitting he was paying her rent. Most critically, Christina refused to believe her children’s abuse disclosures, told them not to report family matters to their therapist, and told her daughter to stay with foster parents while expressing she missed Fisher. The children regressed significantly during unsupervised visits, showing increased anger, withdrawal, depression, and sleep disturbances.
The Court’s Holding
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s termination of Christina’s parental rights to both children and dismissed Herbert M.’s cross-appeal because he died on January 15, 2026 (rendering his appeal moot). The appellate court rejected Christina’s arguments regarding hearsay evidence and the sufficiency of grounds for termination.
On the statutory grounds, the court found that § 43-292(7) was satisfied by clear and convincing evidence—the children had been in out-of-home placement for 23 continuous months (well exceeding the 15-month threshold of the prior 22 months). The court noted this subsection operates “mechanically” and does not require proof of parental fault; instead, parental protections arise during the best-interests analysis. Because one statutory ground was met, the court did not need to address § 43-292(6).
On the best-interests question, the court emphasized that 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 caused, or probably will result in, detriment to the child’s well-being.” The evidence showed Christina could not understand domestic violence’s impact on her children, refused to believe their sexual abuse disclosures (damaging their ability to trust adults and rely on her for protection), continued living with the perpetrator, and showed no timeline for acquiring the skills necessary to protect them. Expert witnesses testified that Christina’s cognitive abilities were a significant barrier to progress and that rehabilitation would not happen quickly—if at all. The court held that children cannot be “suspended in foster care” awaiting “uncertain parental maturity” and that Christina had “failed to put herself in a position to properly parent” the children.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s denial of a child’s abuse disclosure is evidence of unfitness and failure to protect, as it undermines the child’s trust in the parent as a source of safety and support.
- Continuing a relationship with an identified abuser—especially while hiding it from caseworkers—demonstrates inability to protect children and supports termination even absent other statutory grounds.
- When a parent shows limited progress toward rehabilitation and no clear timeline for acquiring the capacity to parent safely, courts will terminate rights rather than keep children indefinitely in foster care.
- The statutory 15-month out-of-home placement trigger (§ 43-292(7)) operates independently of parental fault and shifts the burden to the best-interests step of the analysis.
- Therapist and caseworker testimony regarding parental cognition, barriers to understanding trauma, and continuing risks is admissible and probative in termination proceedings, even absent formal application of hearsay rules.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Nebraska’s commitment to protecting children’s stability and psychological well-being over an indefinite extension of parental rights. By affirming termination based on § 43-292(7)’s time-based trigger, the court avoids leaving children in legal limbo while parents slowly (or fail to) address core deficiencies. The opinion underscores that a parent who cannot believe, validate, and protect a child from demonstrated abuse—and who instead maintains a relationship with the abuser—is unfit as a matter of law, regardless of any love or consistency in visitation.
The decision also clarifies that parental rehabilitation must be measurable and reasonably achievable. When cognitive limitations, persistent denial, and continued exposure to abusive individuals form an interlocking barrier to parental capacity, courts need not wait indefinitely for change that may never come. For child welfare practitioners and attorneys, the opinion provides clear guidance: a parent’s failure to acknowledge or accept a child’s abuse disclosure is itself an indicator of unfitness, and concealing the ongoing presence of an identified perpetrator in the home—even years into a case—justifies termination in the child’s best interests.