- 602 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

30 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF SERENITY A. & CANJERRICA D.

Cite as 30 Neb. App. 602

In re Interest of Serenity A. and Canjerrica D., 

children under 18 years of age.

State of Nebraska, appellee, 

v. Candice D., appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed February 8, 2022. No. A-21-340.

1. Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on the record and reaches its conclusions independently of the juvenile court’s findings. When the evidence is in conflict, 

however, an appellate court may give weight to the fact that the juvenile 

court observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts over 

the other.

2. Parental Rights: Due Process: Appeal and Error. Whether a parent 

who is incarcerated or otherwise confined in custody has been afforded 

procedural due process for a hearing to terminate parental rights is 

within the discretion of the trial court, whose decision on appeal will be 

upheld in the absence of an abuse of discretion.

3. Motions for Continuance: Appeal and Error. A court’s grant or 

denial of a continuance is within the discretion of the trial court, whose 

ruling will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of 

discretion.

4. Parental Rights: Due Process. An incarcerated parent’s physical presence is not necessary at a hearing to terminate parental rights, provided 

that the parent has been afforded procedural due process.

5. Due Process. The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.

6. Juvenile Courts: Parental Rights: Due Process. Generally, it is within 

the juvenile court’s discretion to determine how an incarcerated parent 

may meaningfully participate in the hearing on the termination of his or 

her parental rights consistent with due process.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

02/08/2022 08:06 AM CST
- 603 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

30 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF SERENITY A. & CANJERRICA D.

Cite as 30 Neb. App. 602

7. Constitutional Law: Due Process. Procedural due process includes 

notice to the person whose right is affected by the proceeding; reasonable opportunity to refute or defend against the charge or accusation; 

reasonable opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses 

and present evidence on the charge or accusation; representation by 

counsel, when such representation is required by the Constitution or 

statutes; and a hearing before an impartial decisionmaker.

8. Parental Rights: Due Process. In determining whether to allow a parent’s attendance at a hearing to terminate parental rights, notwithstanding the parent’s incarceration or other confinement, a juvenile court 

must consider several factors: the delay resulting from prospective 

parental attendance, the need for disposition of the proceeding within 

the immediate future, the elapsed time during which the proceeding 

has been pending before the juvenile court, the expense to the State if 

the State will be required to provide transportation for the parent, the 

inconvenience or detriment to parties or witnesses, the potential danger 

or security risk which may occur as a result of the parent’s release from 

custody or confinement to attend the hearing, the reasonable availability 

of the parent’s testimony through a means other than parental attendance 

at the hearing, and the best interests of the parent’s child or children in 

reference to the parent’s prospective physical attendance at the termination hearing.

9. Juvenile Courts: Parental Rights: Due Process. When a juvenile court 

knows that a parent is incarcerated or confined nearby, it should take 

steps, without request, to afford the parent due process before adjudicating a child or terminating the parent’s parental rights.

10. ____: ____: ____. The factors that a court considers in connection with 

allowing a parent’s attendance at a hearing to terminate parental rights, 

notwithstanding the parent’s incarceration or other confinement, relate 

to the overarching and fundamental due process right of the parent to be 

heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.

Appeal from the Separate Juvenile Court of Lancaster 

County: Elise M.W. White, Judge. Reversed and remanded for 

further proceedings.

Dalton W. Tietjen, of Tietjen, Simon & Boyle, for appellant.

Patrick F. Condon, Lancaster County Attorney, and Maureen 

E. Lamski for appellee.

Pirtle, Chief Judge, and Riedmann and Welch, Judges.
- 604 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

30 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF SERENITY A. & CANJERRICA D.

Cite as 30 Neb. App. 602

Welch, Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Candice D. appeals the order of the Lancaster County 

Separate Juvenile Court terminating her parental rights as to 

her two minor children, Serenity A. and Canjerrica D. Candice 

argues that the juvenile court erred in refusing to continue the 

termination hearing, in violation of her due process rights; 

in terminating her parental rights pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 43-292(2), (6), and (7) (Reissue 2016); and in finding that 

termination was in the minor children’s best interests. For the 

reasons stated herein, we reverse the order and remand the 

cause for further proceedings.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Background

Candice is the biological mother of Serenity, born in 2008, 

and Canjerrica, born in 2010. The children’s father is not part 

of this appeal and will only be referenced as necessary to provide factual context.

On September 20, 2019, Candice attempted to pick up the 

minor children from school but was too intoxicated to care 

for them. Candice admitted to drinking and was transported 

to a detoxification center. The minor children were removed 

from Candice’s care on September 21 and have remained in 

out-of-home care since that time.

As a result of these events, Candice was ticketed for child 

abuse, and at the end of October 2019, the juvenile court adjudicated Serenity and Canjerrica as children within the meaning 

of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) (Reissue 2016) based upon 

Candice’s admission to allegations that the children lacked 

proper parental care by reason of Candice’s fault or habits 

relating to the September 20 incident. The initial dispositional order was entered in January 2020, and review hearings 

were held in June, October, and December. During the pendency of this case, the court ordered Candice to, among other 

things, participate in and successfully complete a residential 
- 605 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

30 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF SERENITY A. & CANJERRICA D.

Cite as 30 Neb. App. 602

substance abuse program and follow any recommendations 

for stepdown care or treatment and relapse prevention; abstain 

from the possession or consumption of alcohol, controlled 

substances, or any mind- or mood-altering substances unless 

prescribed by a physician; attend Narcotics Anonymous or 

Alcoholics Anonymous meetings; participate in an initial diagnostic assessment or mental health evaluation; cooperate with 

family support services; participate in family counseling; and 

participate in supervised or monitored parenting time.

On December 21, 2020, the State filed a motion to terminate 

Candice’s parental rights pursuant to § 43-292(2), (6), and (7). 

After difficulty serving Candice with a copy of the motion to 

terminate her parental rights, the court allowed Candice to be 

served by publication. The termination hearing, which was 

originally scheduled for January 22, 2021, was continued to 

March 10, then continued again to April.

Motion to Continue Termination Hearing

At the start of the April 2021 termination hearing, the 

court granted a recess requested by Candice’s counsel because 

Candice had not yet arrived. Following the recess, a deputy 

informed the court that Candice had been taken into custody 

on an outstanding warrant upon entering the courthouse for 

the hearing and would not be available for the hearing. After 

receiving this information, Candice’s counsel requested a continuance which was denied by the court on the bases that the 

termination hearing had been continued at least once previously 

and that the court did not believe Candice “[had] appeared at 

any of the prior hearings [or] multiple docket calls.”

Termination Hearing

At the termination hearing, the court received two exhibits 

into evidence: the September 25, 2020, case plan and court 

report and a collection of certified copies of the court records 

in this case. The State’s sole witness was Jordan Housh, 

who served as a child and family services specialist for the 

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) in this 
- 606 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

30 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF SERENITY A. & CANJERRICA D.

Cite as 30 Neb. App. 602

case from September 2019 to the time of the termination 

hearing, except during her maternity leave, which lasted from 

November 2020 until March 1, 2021. Housh testified that the 

family had two prior court-involved cases which Candice was 

able to resolve. She provided that when the current case began 

in September 2019, DHHS offered family support services, 

visitation services, referrals to treatment facilities, structured 

decisionmaking assessments (which are a tool that DHHS 

uses to determine children’s safety), and a substance abuse 

evaluation. Housh testified that Candice posed a safety risk to 

the children because, when Candice was intoxicated, she was 

unable to provide them with adequate supervision, parenting, 

and care.

The month after the January 2020 dispositional hearing, 

Candice was arrested for child neglect after she, while visibly intoxicated, attempted to contact Serenity at a recreation 

center. Candice’s visitations were temporarily suspended with 

the provision that visitations could take place in a therapeutic 

setting while Candice was sober. Following a hearing in early 

March, the court ordered that Candice “shall have a minimum 

of once weekly supervised parenting time with the minor children [and that Candice] shall not use or be under the influence 

of alcohol or controlled substances during her parenting time 

and may be required to undergo testing prior to any visit taking place.”

After Candice’s February 2020 arrest for child abuse, she 

entered a short-term residential treatment program. While in 

short-term residential treatment, Candice suffered a relapse, 

but she was able to successfully complete the program. She 

then transitioned to the residential “Project Mother Child” 

program. In June, the court permitted Candice to move from 

supervised visitation to monitored visitation, which allowed 

Candice and the children to walk from Candice’s inpatient 

residential facility to nearby stores. While in the residential 

program, Candice relapsed and was intoxicated during at least 

two of her monitored visitations with her children. One of 
- 607 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

30 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF SERENITY A. & CANJERRICA D.

Cite as 30 Neb. App. 602

Candice’s visits with her children ended early because Candice 

was intoxicated and fell asleep during the session. Candice 

failed to attend another visitation and could not be reached by 

the visitation worker. In July, Candice was discharged from the 

residential program because she had relapsed, refused to submit to a breath alcohol test, and was taken to a detoxification 

center by law enforcement but left there before she was sober. 

After Candice’s relapse and discharge from the residential program, her visitation was changed from monitored visitation to 

supervised visitation, which status continued for the remainder 

of the case.

In August 2020, Candice reentered a short-term residential 

treatment program. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the facility enacted restrictions which complicated in-person visitation 

between Candice and the children. Candice successfully graduated from the program in September and was presented with 

certificates of completion from a wellness and recovery group, 

a parenting class, and a “Circle of Security” class and received 

four letters of support from therapists and support staff at the 

facility. At the completion of her treatment, she had obtained 

housing and had a plan for therapy, continued drug treatment, 

medication management, Narcotics Anonymous or Alcoholics 

Anonymous attendance, and drug testing.

Despite Candice’s progress, Housh generally testified that 

in November 2020, Candice did not engage in drug testing, 

substance abuse services, or family support. Candice’s last 

visit with her children occurred on December 24, and from 

December 2020 to March 2021, Candice’s whereabouts were 

unknown. During that time, Housh alleged Candice was not 

involved in substance abuse treatment and family support. 

Housh testified that Candice did not have any contact with 

DHHS from December 2020 until March 29, 2021, when she 

contacted Housh. During that contact, Candice stated that she 

had been assaulted multiple times and asked to meet Housh in 

person. The meeting took place several days later at Candice’s 

apartment. Housh noted that the front door of the apartment 
- 608 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

30 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF SERENITY A. & CANJERRICA D.

Cite as 30 Neb. App. 602

complex was unlocked and cracked open and that Candice’s 

apartment door was open. Housh stated that during previous 

visits, she was unable to enter the apartment complex because 

the front door was always locked. Candice informed Housh 

that she had been assaulted four times, and Housh observed 

that Candice had stitches on her left eyebrow and bruising 

on her eyes and face. During the meeting, Candice stated that 

she feared disclosing the assaults to Housh because she had 

been previously told that she needed to make real changes and 

participate in all services. Candice denied using any alcohol. 

After further discussion, Candice reported to Housh that she 

had been at a domestic violence support center which offered 

her crisis services, emergency shelter, and transitional housing. 

Housh testified that during her meeting with Candice, Candice 

received a call from the center asking when Candice would be 

returning to the center.

During the meeting, Housh informed Candice of the pending 

motion to terminate Candice’s parental rights and the scheduled 

hearing thereon. Housh testified that this information caused 

Candice to become visibly upset, raise her voice, use profanity, 

and present with “aggressive” body language. Housh indicated 

Candice was eventually able to calm down and continue the 

discussion, telling Housh that she had called her children “a 

few times” from the center, she provided Christmas gifts for 

her children, and stated several times that she was “the best 

mom and that she ha[d] always been there for her children.”

Housh admitted that Candice and the children share a strong 

bond and love each other and that when Candice was sober, 

the visits went well. However, when Candice was not sober 

during visits,

[t]he children did not want to continue the visits and 

would usually ask the visitation worker if they could 

leave the visit. During the visit, what would upset the 

girls . . . would be [Candice’s] falling asleep on the 

couch, her questioning the girls about different things 

that either didn’t make sense or that the girls didn’t know 
- 609 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

30 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF SERENITY A. & CANJERRICA D.

Cite as 30 Neb. App. 602

the answer to. . . . [S]ometimes Candice would be in the 

bathroom for periods of time. Ultimately, the children 

would mostly ask the visit to be ended due to [Candice’s] 

intoxication.

The children have also stated that they do not want to be 

around Candice if she continued to use substances. Further, 

although Housh acknowledged that COVID-19 had negatively 

impacted the progress of the case, there was no denial of treatment due to COVID-19 and it was ultimately Candice’s relapse 

that affected the progress of the case. Additionally, Housh testified that Candice has not had stable employment throughout 

this case due to attending treatment and that although family 

counseling was set up, it was stopped after Candice was unsuccessfully discharged from short-term treatment. Housh testified 

that Candice has not engaged in drug or alcohol testing since 

April 1, 2021.

Housh testified that it was DHHS’ position that terminating 

Candice’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests 

because

[Candice] has been uninvolved in the case for the past 

three months and . . . even prior to December of 2020 and 

November of 2020, she could not gain stability of her life. 

She could not remain sober. And even prior to this case 

being open, there were also previous cases where there 

[were] similar issues. Yes, in the previous cases she was 

able to fix those issues and have the children returned 

back to her home, but this time she has been unable to do 

that, and I believe that it puts the children at risk of future 

harm if they were to be reunited with her.

Juvenile Court’s Order

The juvenile court terminated Candice’s parental rights pursuant to § 43-292(2), (6), and (7) and found that termination was in the minor children’s best interests. The court 

specifically found that Candice had substantially and continuously or repeatedly neglected and refused to give the children 
- 610 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

30 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF SERENITY A. & CANJERRICA D.

Cite as 30 Neb. App. 602

necessary parental care and protection, that reasonable efforts 

to preserve and reunify the family had failed to correct the 

conditions which led to adjudication, and that the children had 

been in out-of-home placement for more than 15 of the past 

22 months. The court further found that the termination was in 

the minor children’s best interests in order for them to obtain 

permanency, specifically finding that Candice was unfit due to 

her failure to gain stability or maintain sobriety, placing her 

children at risk; the children went 3 months without any contact from Candice; the children needed a permanent, stable, and 

loving caregiver; and the court had not been presented with any 

evidence that Candice had made continued improvement in her 

parenting skills or maintained a beneficial relationship with her 

children. Candice has timely appealed to this court.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Candice’s assignments of error, renumbered and restated, 

are that the juvenile court erred in (1) overruling her motion to 

continue the termination hearing; (2) terminating her parental 

rights pursuant to § 43-292(2), (6), and (7); and (3) finding that 

the termination was in the children’s best interests.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on 

the record and reaches its conclusions independently of the 

juvenile court’s findings. In re Interest of LeVanta S., 295 Neb. 

151, 887 N.W.2d 502 (2016). When the evidence is in conflict, 

however, an appellate court may give weight to the fact that the 

juvenile court observed the witnesses and accepted one version 

of the facts over the other. Id.

[2] Whether a parent who is incarcerated or otherwise confined in custody has been afforded procedural due process for 

a hearing to terminate parental rights is within the discretion of 

the trial court, whose decision on appeal will be upheld in the 

absence of an abuse of discretion. In re Interest of Joezia P., 

ante p. 281, 968 N.W.2d 101 (2021).
- 611 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

30 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF SERENITY A. & CANJERRICA D.

Cite as 30 Neb. App. 602

[3] A court’s grant or denial of a continuance is within the 

discretion of the trial court, whose ruling will not be disturbed 

on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion. In re Interest 

of Noah C., 306 Neb. 359, 945 N.W.2d 143 (2020).

ANALYSIS

Motion to Continue

Candice first argues that the juvenile court’s refusal to continue the termination hearing following her arrest at the courthouse violated her due process rights and was an abuse of the 

court’s discretion.

[4,5] It is well-settled law in Nebraska, and Candice acknowledges, that an incarcerated parent’s physical presence is not 

necessary at a hearing to terminate parental rights, provided 

that the parent has been afforded procedural due process. In re 

Interest of Taeson D., 305 Neb. 279, 939 N.W.2d 832 (2020). 

The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard “‘“at a meaningful time and in a meaningful 

manner.”’” Id. at 285, 939 N.W.2d at 837, quoting Mathews v. 

Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976).

[6-9] Generally, it is within the juvenile court’s discretion to 

determine how an incarcerated parent may meaningfully participate in the hearing on the termination of his or her parental 

rights consistent with due process. See In re Interest of Taeson 

D., supra.

“‘[P]rocedural due process includes notice to the person 

whose right is affected by the proceeding; reasonable 

opportunity to refute or defend against the charge or 

accusation; reasonable opportunity to confront and crossexamine adverse witnesses and present evidence on the 

charge or accusation; representation by counsel, when such 

representation is required by the Constitution or statutes; 

and a hearing before an impartial decisionmaker.’”

In re Interest of Mainor T. & Estela T., 267 Neb. 232, 247-48, 

674 N.W.2d 442, 457 (2004). In determining whether to allow 

a parent’s attendance, notwithstanding the parent’s incarceration or other confinement, a juvenile court must consider 
- 612 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

30 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF SERENITY A. & CANJERRICA D.

Cite as 30 Neb. App. 602

several factors identified by the Nebraska Supreme Court 

as follows:

“the delay resulting from prospective parental attendance, 

the need for disposition of the proceeding within the 

immediate future, the elapsed time during which the 

proceeding has been pending before the juvenile court, 

the expense to the State if the State will be required to 

provide transportation for the parent, the inconvenience 

or detriment to parties or witnesses, the potential danger 

or security risk which may occur as a result of the parent’s release from custody or confinement to attend the 

hearing, the reasonable availability of the parent’s testimony through a means other than parental attendance at 

the hearing, and the best interests of the parent’s child or 

children in reference to the parent’s prospective physical 

attendance at the termination hearing.”

In re Interest of Taeson D., 305 Neb. at 285-86, 939 N.W.2d 

at 837, quoting In re Interest of L.V., 240 Neb. 404, 482 

N.W.2d 250 (1992). However, when a juvenile court knows 

that a parent is incarcerated or confined nearby, it should 

take steps, without request, to afford the parent due process 

before adjudicating a child or terminating the parent’s parental 

rights. In re Interest of Landon H., 287 Neb. 105, 841 N.W.2d 

369 (2013).

Here, Candice was not personally served with summons 

in connection with the termination proceedings due to her 

unknown location at that time. Instead, notice of the proceeding was provided through publication and, after Candice eventually reached out to Housh, Housh provided her with actual 

notice of the termination hearing 4 days before its scheduled 

date. Candice attempted to attend the termination hearing; 

however, she was arrested on an outstanding warrant when she 

arrived at the courthouse. The court’s awareness of Candice’s 

situation was captured on the record. Following Candice’s 

counsel’s disclosure that he was waiting for Candice to arrive, 

the court granted a recess and stated:
- 613 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

30 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF SERENITY A. & CANJERRICA D.

Cite as 30 Neb. App. 602

[I]t was my understanding from our courthouse security 

that [Candice] does have a warrant outstanding and so if 

she does appear in the courthouse, I’m not overly confident that she will make it up to the 4th floor before being 

taken in for that warrant. But, nonetheless, we will — 

let’s recess.

Following a short recess, the parties returned and counsel 

indicated that Candice had been taken into custody on the warrant. Counsel requested a continuance without objection, but 

the court denied the oral motion, indicating:

The Court would note, I think this matter has been set for 

trial and continued at least once that the Court’s recalling 

for further efforts at service. Court would also note that I 

do not believe [Candice] has appeared at any of the prior 

hearings that the Court has had and there’s been multiple 

docket calls on this matter. So, at this time, the Court will 

deny the Motion to Continue.

The question becomes whether the juvenile court abused its 

discretion in overruling Candice’s counsel’s motion to continue 

the trial under these circumstances. We hold that it did.

The timing of counsel’s motion to continue the termination hearing here presents unusual circumstances. In deciding 

whether to allow a parent’s attendance at a hearing to terminate 

parental rights notwithstanding the parent’s incarceration or 

confinement, the court is normally examining a case of confinement which predated the date of the hearing. For instance, 

in In re Interest of Joezia P., ante p. 28, 968 N.W.2d 101 

(2021), we held the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion 

in overruling a motion to transport the father to appear at trial 

when the court had continued the trial on a previous occasion 

so the father could attend and made arrangements for the father 

to meaningfully participate in the trial despite his physical 

absence. More specifically, we stated:

In this case, [the father] was aware that [the child] 

was adjudicated as a juvenile under § 43-247(3)(a). [The 

father] was aware of the pending motion to terminate 
- 614 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

30 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF SERENITY A. & CANJERRICA D.

Cite as 30 Neb. App. 602

his parental rights and filed a written denial to the allegations therein. [The father] was represented by counsel 

throughout the proceedings, and the juvenile court held 

a bifurcated hearing, allowing [the father] to review a 

transcript of the evidence against him and consult with 

counsel before presenting his case. After the close of all 

the evidence, the court continued the matter for a third 

hearing to afford [the father] additional time to consult 

with counsel prior to resting his case.

In re Interest of Joezia P., ante at 295, 968 N.W.2d at 112 

(2021).

But the instant case presents a markedly different set of circumstances and procedural posture. First, despite the juvenile 

court’s statement, in support of denial of the motion to continue, which indicated that Candice “[had not] appeared at any 

of the prior hearings [or] multiple docket calls,” this statement 

was not an accurate account of the record. The record demonstrates that Candice was present at the October 2019 adjudication hearing, the January 2020 dispositional hearing, the June 

2020 review hearing, and the October 2020 review hearing. It 

appears that Candice was not present at the December 2019 

review hearing which was continued until January 2020, the 

March 2020 motion to suspend visitation, and the March 

2021 docket call for termination. This error may likely relate 

to the change in juvenile court judges during the pendency 

of the case. More importantly, Candice attempted to attend 

the termination hearing and was arrested upon entering the 

courthouse.

Second, a significant component of our ruling in In re 

Interest of Joezia P., supra, was premised upon our finding 

that the juvenile court took steps to ensure the incarcerated 

individual could meaningfully participate in the trial despite his 

physical absence from the proceedings. Here, no such accommodation was made, in large measure because Candice’s confinement took place only minutes before the termination hearing 

began. Instead of focusing on the impact of that confinement 
- 615 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

30 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF SERENITY A. & CANJERRICA D.

Cite as 30 Neb. App. 602

as it related to Candice’s ability to participate in the termination hearing, the court appeared more concerned with prior 

delays and the need to move forward with the proceeding. And 

although prior delays are relevant considerations in balancing 

due process rights associated with attendance at a termination 

hearing, it must be considered in connection with the children’s 

best interests in reference to a parent’s actual attendance at trial 

and the parents’ due process rights to meaningfully participate 

at a termination hearing, including the reasonable opportunity 

to refute or defend against the allegations.

[10] The factors that a court considers in connection with 

allowing a parent’s attendance at a hearing to terminate parental rights, notwithstanding the parent’s incarceration or other 

confinement, relate to the overarching and fundamental due 

process right of the parent to be heard at a meaningful time and 

in a meaningful manner. See In re Interest of Joezia P., ante

p. 281, 968 N.W.2d 101 (2021) (fundamental requirement of 

due process is opportunity to be heard at meaningful time and 

in meaningful manner). In reviewing the facts of this case, we 

are mindful of the Nebraska Supreme Court’s statement in In 

re Interest of Landon H., 287 Neb. 105, 112, 841 N.W.2d 369, 

374-75 (2013), wherein the court held:

We clarified that juvenile courts are not required to 

conduct inquiries into the whereabouts of every parent 

who fails to appear for a scheduled hearing. In most 

cases, a parent who has notice of the hearing should 

request to personally participate. But when a court knows 

that a parent is incarcerated or confined nearby, it should 

take steps, without request, to afford the parent due process before adjudicating a child or terminating the parent’s 

parental rights.

In balancing those rights here, it is clear from this record that 

Candice’s October 2020 report showed significant improvement in her alcohol dependence which led to the original 

adjudication and eventual motion to terminate. It is equally 

clear the State moved forward with termination when Candice 
- 616 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

30 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF SERENITY A. & CANJERRICA D.

Cite as 30 Neb. App. 602

could not be located for several months following the previous 

hearing, in which she demonstrated significant progress. As 

such, the one person in a position to explain what happened 

to her was Candice, who attempted to attend her trial but was 

arrested when she reached the courthouse.

Although Candice had missed some, but not all, of the 

court’s prior hearings, she attempted to attend the termination 

hearing. This was not a case of a parent’s unknown whereabouts or failure to appear. The court was aware Candice 

was detained upon arrival while attempting to appear. Under 

these circumstances, the juvenile court should have afforded 

Candice an opportunity to participate in the termination hearing. Although Candice’s counsel was present and able to participate in some ways, that participation did not include a 

meaningful opportunity to arrange for Candice to testify if she 

chose to. Further, because the court granted the State’s request 

to continue the father’s termination hearing until June 2021, 

there was not a need to dispose of Candice’s termination hearing in the immediate future, in that granting a continuance to 

allow Candice an opportunity to participate in her termination 

hearing would not detrimentally impact the children’s immediate permanency or stability. Conversely, there was significant 

detriment to Candice by not continuing the termination hearing to allow her to participate in some form. Based upon the 

facts present in this case, we find the juvenile court abused 

its discretion in not granting Candice’s counsel’s motion for a 

continuance to allow Candice an opportunity to meaningfully 

participate in the proceedings.

Remaining Assignments of Error

Having determined that the order of the juvenile court must 

be reversed and that the cause must be remanded for further 

proceedings, we need not address Candice’s remaining assignments of error. See In re Adoption of Yasmin S., 308 Neb. 771, 

956 N.W.2d 704 (2021) (appellate court is not obligated to 

engage in analysis that is not necessary to adjudicate case and 

controversy before it).
- 617 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

30 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF SERENITY A. & CANJERRICA D.

Cite as 30 Neb. App. 602

CONCLUSION

Having found that the court abused its discretion in failing 

to continue the hearing for termination of Candice’s parental 

rights or take steps to ensure her meaningful participation, we 

reverse the juvenile court’s order of termination and remand 

the cause for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded for 

further proceedings.