Background
Alfred J.’s three children entered state custody in 2023, initially remaining in his home under a safety plan. After repeated removals and returns, including removals prompted by substantiated concerns of physical abuse, the children were returned to Alfred in December 2024 and January 2025. Reports of further physical abuse followed, and all three children were removed again on January 27, 2025.
The State sought termination under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292(2), (6), and (7). Following a three-day hearing, the juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence supporting each statutory ground and concluded that Alfred was unfit and termination served the children’s best interests. Alfred appealed without complying with the rules for obtaining a bill of exceptions, and his pro se brief also failed to separately assign errors as required by Nebraska’s appellate rules.
The Court’s Holding
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed. Because Alfred did not provide a bill of exceptions, the appellate court could review only the available pleadings and the termination order and was required to presume that the evidence presented below supported the juvenile court’s judgment.
The court reviewed the termination under § 43-292(7), which applies when children have spent at least 15 of the most recent 22 months in out-of-home placement and does not require proof of parental fault. The termination order reflected multiple periods of out-of-home placement totaling the required period. The order also recited evidence that the children had experienced domestic violence, physical and emotional abuse, and instability in Alfred’s care, and that they needed permanency that reunification was unlikely to provide soon. In the absence of an evidentiary record, the appellate court presumed that the evidence supported both the statutory ground and the findings of unfitness and best interests.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant bears responsibility for properly requesting and filing a bill of exceptions; without one, appellate review is confined to the pleadings and judgment.
- When the evidentiary record is absent, the appellate court presumes that the evidence supports the trial court’s findings and judgment.
- Section 43-292(7) operates mechanically based on time in out-of-home placement, but termination still requires proof that the parent is unfit and that termination serves the children’s best interests.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that procedural failures can sharply restrict appellate review even in parental-rights cases. A parent who does not preserve the evidentiary record or properly assign error may be unable to obtain substantive review of factual challenges to a termination order.
It also illustrates the distinct roles of Nebraska’s 15-of-22-month statutory ground and the best-interests inquiry: the placement period can establish a statutory basis without proof of fault, while parental fitness and the children’s need for safety and permanency remain central to whether termination is warranted.