Background
Brook F. is the biological mother of twin boys, Jaxson and Jayden, born in May 2017. The children were initially removed from Brook’s care in January 2024 after she was arrested and no caregiver remained in the home. This removal came after the Department of Health and Human Services had been receiving reports throughout 2023 of domestic violence between Brook and her boyfriend. The children had previously been removed in 2019, remaining in out-of-home placement for 26 months before reunification with Brook in February 2022.
DHHS developed a case plan requiring Brook to: (1) establish safe and stable housing free of substance use and violence; (2) address her mental health; and (3) maintain sobriety and comply with drug testing. The court ordered drug patch and urinalysis testing and completion of substance abuse and co-occurring evaluations. In April 2025, the State filed a motion to terminate Brook’s parental rights under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292(2), (4), (6), and (7).
The termination hearing was held in August 2025, after the children had been in out-of-home placement for approximately 18 months. Brook appealed the county court’s order terminating her parental rights, claiming the State failed to prove termination was in the children’s best interests.
The Court’s Holding
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, holding that the State met its burden under both the statutory bases for termination and the best interests standard. Under § 43-292(7), once children have been in out-of-home placement for 15 or more months of the most recent 22 months, termination may be ordered mechanically, without requiring proof of parental fault. Here, the 18-month placement easily satisfied this requirement.
Critically, the court found clear and convincing evidence that Brook was unfit as a parent. The evidence showed that throughout the case, Brook made little to no progress on her case plan goals: she failed to obtain stable housing or consistent employment, living in unstable situations with concerning individuals; she was inconsistent with mental health counseling and eventually stopped attending entirely; she failed to comply with drug testing despite DHHS arranging multiple convenient providers; and her contact with the children was sporadic and often harmful. When she did participate in virtual visitation, she was described as inconsistent, selfish, and mean—so much so that her own therapist testified visitation was causing the children psychological harm.
The court emphasized that both children explicitly stated they did not want to return to Brook’s care, feared her, and did not trust her to meet their needs. The children needed safety, consistency, and permanency. Because Brook demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to rehabilitate herself within a reasonable time and the original concerns at removal remained unresolved after 18 months, termination was in the children’s best interests.
Key Takeaways
- Nebraska’s § 43-292(7) permits termination based solely on 15+ months of out-of-home placement within a 22-month period, without requiring proof of parental fault, though best interests must still be shown.
- A parent’s right to raise a child is constitutionally protected; the State must prove parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption favoring parental relationships.
- Parental unfitness is established when a parent’s personal deficiency or incapacity has prevented or will prevent performance of reasonable parental obligations and causes or will result in detriment to the child’s well-being.
- Courts are not required to demand perfection; they should seek evidence of continued improvement and a beneficial parent-child relationship—but failure to progress after 18 months of accessible services supports unfitness findings.
- Children cannot and should not be suspended in foster care awaiting uncertain parental maturity, particularly where, as here, a child has already experienced two removal episodes.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Nebraska’s child-centered approach to parental termination: while parental rights are constitutionally protected, the law ultimately prioritizes children’s need for safety, consistency, and permanency over prolonged efforts to rehabilitate parents who show minimal engagement. The court’s emphasis that visitation itself can cause psychological harm challenges the assumption that maintaining parent-child contact is always beneficial. For child welfare practitioners, the opinion demonstrates that even when a state provides accommodating services (convenient drug-testing providers, accessible counseling), persistent parental non-compliance over 18 months establishes both unfitness and the child’s best interests in termination.
The case also illustrates the cumulative effect of parental failure across multiple domains—housing, employment, mental health, substance use, and parent-child interaction. No single failure alone justified termination, but the pattern of unimproved circumstances combined with the children’s explicit rejection of their mother and the documented harm from visits proved decisive. For attorneys in child welfare, the decision signals that appellate courts will carefully scrutinize best-interests findings in § 43-292(7) cases yet will uphold termination where children have spent extended time in care, received little benefit from visitation, and show no indication the parent will become fit in the foreseeable future.