- 1 -

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL

(Memorandum Web Opinion)

IN RE INTEREST OF KRISTOPHER G.

NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION

AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. § 2-102(E).

IN RE INTEREST OF KRISTOPHER G., A CHILD UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE.

STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE,

V.

LADARIUS G., APPELLANT.

Filed March 28, 2023. No. A-22-630.

Appeal from the County Court for Dawson County: JEFFREY M. WIGHTMAN, Judge. 

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Claire K. Bazata, of Berreckman & Bazata, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.

R. Garrett Goodwin, Deputy Dawson County Attorney, for appellee.

PIRTLE, Chief Judge, and MOORE and WELCH, Judges.

MOORE, Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Ladarius G. appeals from an order of the county court for Dawson County, sitting as a 

juvenile court, terminating his parental rights to his son, Kristopher G. Upon our de novo review 

of the record, we conclude that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that 

Ladarius was an unfit parent and that it was in Kristopher’s best interests to terminate Ladarius’

parental rights. We therefore reverse the order of the juvenile court and remand for further 

proceedings.
- 2 -

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Procedural Background.

Ladarius is the biological father of Kristopher, born in June 2020. Kristopher’s biological 

mother, Katelyn G., relinquished her parental rights at the start of the termination trial, and we 

discuss her only as necessary to the resolution of the current appeal by Ladarius.

Kristopher was removed from Katelyn’s care by law enforcement on August 3, 2020, in 

Lexington, Nebraska. Kentucky authorities had been tracing the cell phone signal of a teenage 

runaway and alerted local law enforcement that the runaway was in the area. Law enforcement 

located the runaway in a vehicle along with Katelyn and Kristopher, who was only 6 weeks old. 

Katelyn, also from Kentucky, reported to law enforcement that she was friends with the runaway 

and had wanted to get away from home for a couple of days. She was then taken into custody and 

Kristopher was taken into emergency custody by the Nebraska Department of Health and Human 

Services (the Department). Katelyn refused to provide the identity of Kristopher’s father at the 

time of his removal. Shortly after Kristopher’s removal, he was diagnosed with dehydration and 

failure to thrive due to his low weight. A petition was filed on August 5 to adjudicate Kristopher 

pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) (Reissue 2016) based on a lack of proper parental care 

provided by Katelyn. An ex parte custody order was signed that same day, continuing temporary 

care with Department. Kristopher has remained out of the home and in foster placement since he 

was removed.

Katelyn later identified Ladarius as Kristopher’s biological father and genetic testing was 

completed in October 2020. On November 10, 2020, test results were received by the Department 

indicating that Ladarius was Kristopher’s father. Throughout the entirety of this case Ladarius has 

been incarcerated in Kentucky. Upon discovering that he was Kristopher’s father, Ladarius 

communicated to the Department that he wanted to be a party to the juvenile case. We note that 

from our record on appeal, it appears that no supplemental petition containing allegations related 

to Ladarius was ever filed.

The juvenile court entered a dispositional plan regarding Ladarius on December 16, 2020, 

adopting the case plan presented by the Department. Ladarius’ case plan goals included (1) 

building a relationship with Kristopher by participating in regular video visitation or creating plans 

to have in person visitation; and (2) having monthly contact with the Department. Several review 

hearings were held during this case; occurring on March 24, 2021, and June 3, September 7, 

December 8, and March 9, 2022. The goals of the court adopted plans have been consistent 

throughout the case. Further details regarding the plans will be discussed in connection with our 

analysis below.

On April 1, 2022, the State filed a motion for termination of Katelyn and Ladarius’ rights 

to Kristopher; alleging statutory grounds to terminate the parents’ rights existed pursuant to Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 43-292(6) and (7) (Reissue 2016), and alleging that termination was in Kristopher’s 

best interests.
- 3 -

Termination Trial.

A termination trial related only to Ladarius was held on June 8, 2022, as Katelyn 

relinquished her parental rights at the beginning of the trial. At the trial, two Department 

caseworkers and Ladarius testified as witnesses.

Amanda Daily was Kristopher’s caseworker from September 4, 2020, until April 4, 2022. 

Daily’s involvement with the case ended when Kristopher’s permanency goal was changed from 

reunification to adoption and the case was transferred to a worker on the Department’s permanency 

team.

Daily testified that Ladarius had been incarcerated since September 18, 2020, for second 

degree battery and wanton endangerment. Ladarius had been incarcerated for the entirety of 

Kristopher’s juvenile case and Kristopher and Ladarius had never met in person or had any 

physical contact. Daily was concerned that Ladarius was incarcerated for a violent crime, but later 

acknowledged that she had been mistaken and Ladarius had been convicted of burglary, not 

battery.

Daily testified to Ladarius’ case plan goal of maintaining monthly communication with the 

Department. Attempting to call the facility where Ladarius was incarcerated, “proved to be very 

difficult,” and Daily was not able to reach Ladarius by placing monthly calls from September to 

December 2020. Daily thereafter began sending monthly letters to Ladarius which included 

updates on the case, court proceedings, and Kristopher’s developmental progress. At the end of 

the letter, Daily always instructed Ladarius to call her at a set time and date in 3 to 4 weeks. In 

addition to including her phone number, Daily included her email address and her office’s physical 

address. Daily’s monthly letters were not offered into evidence.

The record shows that Ladarius attempted to call Daily in January 2021 (after receiving the 

first letter from her), but he was unable to reach Daily due to inclement weather in Nebraska. 

Ladarius called Daily again on February 4, 2021. During this phone call, Daily was allotted only 

15 minutes and she spent the time introducing herself, explaining the posture of Kristopher’s 

juvenile case, and speaking briefly about having Ladarius’ family become involved in the case. As 

Daily began speaking about video visitation between Ladarius and Kristopher the call was cut off. 

Daily did not receive another phone call from Ladarius until January 27, 2022, which call was 

initiated by his mother. In this phone call, Ladarius told Daily that he was getting connected with 

a parenting class, but Daily was unsure if he ever completed the program. Daily did not specifically 

ask him to participate in any programming.

In one of Daily’s phone calls with Ladarius, he indicated that he received all of Daily’s 

letters but that he had no money “on his books” to communicate with Daily. Daily did not believe 

the Department would be able to provide Ladarius with funds to help facilitate his communication 

with the Department, but noted that she never discussed putting money in Ladarius’ account with 

a supervisor. Daily also conceded that the Department could have afforded sending Ladarius return 

addressed stamped envelopes to facilitate written correspondence. Daily did not attempt to make 

any calls to Ladarius from December 2020 to March 2022.

Daily was unable to fully complete a Family Strengths and Needs Assessment, used for 

determining case plan goals for families, because she did not have relevant information from 

Ladarius. Daily acknowledged that her letters did not pose any questions to Ladarius, that she did 
- 4 -

not make him aware that she needed to interview him for an evaluation, and that the assessment 

was never explained to him. Although Daily testified that the assessment was completed using 

historic information from Katelyn and Ladarius’ mother, there is no specific parenting assessment 

regarding Ladarius in the record. Rather, the case plans and court reports only note that Ladarius 

is incarcerated out of state. The case plan in March 2021 indicated that after Ladarius completed 

his sentence, he needed to communicate with the Department in order to fully assess his strengths 

and needs.

Ladarius’ other case plan goal was to build a relationship with Kristopher through 

participation in regular video visitation, or creating plans to have in person visits with Kristopher. 

Daily’s letters did not provide Ladarius with instructions on how to exercise video visitation with 

Kristopher. Daily stated that she hoped that Ladarius’ mother had provided him with the relevant 

information regarding video visitation, as Daily had discussed such with her. The record shows 

that at some point, the Department authorized Ladarius to have video visitation during Katelyn’s 

parenting time.

Ladarius was initially held in a county jail and then was transferred to a correctional 

facility. The first facility had a specific website application which was necessary to use for any 

kind of video visitation. Neither Katelyn nor her family support worker were able to get the 

application downloaded onto their phones. Daily called the first facility in an effort to set up video 

visitation but her calls went unanswered and she never received a call back from a facility official.

In Ladarius’ first facility, the video call application was a paid application which required 

someone to put money into his account. Daily noted that any member of Ladarius’ family could 

have funded his account in order for video visitation to occur. Daily conceded that the Department 

has a practice of paying to help parents have visitation with their children, but added that the 

practice was only applicable to an “engaged parent. . .” When Ladarius was transferred to a second 

correctional facility in March 2022, he was allotted one visit via Zoom videoconferencing a month.

Daily estimated that six or seven video calls occurred between Ladarius and Kristopher 

throughout the juvenile case. However, the calls were very short due to Kristopher’s young age. 

Daily was not aware of any occasions where Ladarius refused opportunities to have video visits 

with Kristopher. Daily did not believe that a significant bond could be developed between a parent 

and toddler through video calls. No visitation notes or other documentation regarding Ladarius’

video visitation with Kristopher was entered into evidence.

All of the videos calls happened with the assistance of Katelyn or Ladarius’ mother during 

Katelyn’s supervised visitation with Kristopher. Visitation plans attached to the Department’s case 

plans confirm that Katelyn was tasked by the Department with facilitating video visitation between 

Ladarius and Kristopher. Daily testified that there was not a possibility for any other video calls to 

have happened between Ladarius and Kristopher.

Daily was unable to facilitate any in person visits between Ladarius and Kristopher due to 

Ladarius being incarcerated out of state. Daily did not contact the correctional facilities to inquire 

into the possibly of an in person visit between Ladarius and Kristopher and did not work with 

Ladarius’ family to set up an in person visit. Daily indicated that the plan for in person visits 

referenced in Ladarius’ case plan was intended for after Ladarius’ release. She stated that the 

Department did not support in person visits if Kristopher had to travel to Kentucky. However, the 
- 5 -

March 2021 case plan indicated that the Department would assist with transportation in Nebraska 

once Ladarius was released.

One of Daily’s greatest concerns regarding Ladarius’ ability to parent Kristopher was that, 

at the time of trial, “[t]he Department does not have enough knowledge to safely say that 

Kristopher would be safe in the care of Ladarius. . .” Daily was also concerned by Ladarius’ lack 

of engagement in the case and with the Department, and opined that termination of Ladarius’

parental rights was in Kristopher’s best interest.

Daily testified that she completed two “ICPC packets” for home studies on two relatives 

in Kentucky (Katelyn’s aunt and Ladarius’ mother), but both ICPCs were denied. Kristopher was 

placed with two different foster couples; the second couple indicated a willingness to adopt 

Kristopher.

Paige Peterson was the Department caseworker who took over the case from Daily in April 

2022 and was Kristopher’s caseworker until the time of trial. Although the court-ordered case 

plans included a goal that Ladarius build a relationship with Kristopher through weekly supervised 

video visitation, Peterson had not facilitated any video calls since becoming involved in the case. 

Because Kristopher’s sole permanency goal had been changed to adoption with no secondary goal 

of reunification, Peterson explained that she was no longer required to provide reasonable efforts 

to establish a bond between Ladarius and Kristopher.

Peterson testified that she looked up Ladarius’ release date on the Kentucky Inmates 

Website to prepare the most recent case plan. According to Peterson, the website indicated that 

Ladarius would be released in August 2023, however, a copy of the website page was not offered 

into evidence. At some point, Ladarius’ mother advised that Ladarius was eligible for parole in 

August 2022.

Peterson had one phone call with Ladarius in May 2022 where he communicated to her 

that he would be released in August 2022. Ladarius discussed his plans for release with Peterson, 

which included seeking employment and housing in Kentucky. Ladarius also communicated to 

Peterson that he had not been able to participate in many courses while incarcerated due to 

COVID-19 restrictions, but he was able to participate in a reintegration course focused on 

preparing for his release.

Due to Ladarius’ incarceration, Peterson found it challenging to identify his strengths and 

weaknesses as a parent. However, Peterson noted that no bond existed between Ladarius and 

Kristopher due to his incarceration. After Ladarius’ release it would be a “possibility” that the 

Department would have to start transporting Kristopher to Kentucky to establish a bond. However, 

Peterson indicated that Kristopher has an extreme fear of strangers. Peterson stated that introducing 

Ladarius to Kristopher in person would leave Kristopher “terrified,” which would not be in 

Kristopher’s best interests.

Ladarius testified that his date of release was in September 2022 and after his release he 

would be able to leave the state, subject to approval. He clarified that he was convicted of second 

degree burglary and first degree wanton endangerment.

Ladarius stated that he wants contact with Kristopher and the ability to work toward 

reunification. Ladarius was not notified that he was Kristopher’s father before his birth, and only 

discovered that he was Kristopher’s father through genetic testing in November 2020.
- 6 -

While incarcerated, Ladarius completed an anger management class and a reintegration 

class focused on how to gain employment and prepare a budget upon release. Ladarius also started 

a parenting class but because the instructor resigned, it was never completed.

Ladarius estimated that he had 20 to 30 video calls with Kristopher throughout the case. 

No information was ever provided by the Department regarding how Ladarius could exercise video 

visitation with Kristopher and Katelyn was Ladarius’ main point of contact for facilitating the 

video visits. Ladarius also denied that he received any communication regarding the Department’s 

need to complete a Family Strengths and Needs Assessment.

All video calls have been funded by members of Ladarius’ family. It cost Ladarius $3.50 

to have video visitation with Kristopher and $5 to make a 15-minute phone call. Ladarius testified 

to foregoing calling the Department in order to save the money for video calls with Kristopher.

Juvenile Court’s Order.

The juvenile court entered an order on August 3, 2022, terminating Ladarius’ parental 

rights to Kristopher. The court found that pursuant to § 43-292(6), Ladarius had failed to correct 

the conditions that led to the child being adjudicated under § 43-247(3)(a). The court also found 

that pursuant to § 43-292(7), Kristopher had been in out-of-home placement for 15 or more months 

out of the most recent 22 months. The court further found that Ladarius was an unfit parent and 

that it was in the best interests of Kristopher to have Ladarius’ parental rights terminated.

Ladarius appeals.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Ladarius assigns, restated, that the juvenile court erred in finding that (1) statutory grounds 

existed to terminate his parental rights under § 43-292(6), and (2) termination of his parental rights 

was in Kristopher’s best interests.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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 facts over another. In re Interest of Mateo L. et al., 309 Neb. 565, 961 

N.W.2d 516 (2021).

ANALYSIS

Statutory Grounds for Termination.

The juvenile court found that the State had presented clear and convincing evidence to 

satisfy § 43-292(6) and (7). Ladarius asserts that the State failed to prove the statutory grounds for 

termination under § 43-292(6). However, Ladarius acknowledges that Kristopher has been out of 

the home for at least 15 of the most recent 22 months.

Section 43-292(7) allows for termination when the juvenile has been in an out-of-home 

placement for 15 or more months of the most recent 22 months. It operates mechanically and, 

unlike the other subsections of the statute, does not require the State to adduce evidence of any 

specific fault on the part of a parent. In re Interest of Kenna S., 17 Neb. App. 544, 766 N.W.2d 
- 7 -

424 (2009). In a case of termination of parental rights based on § 43-292(7), the protection afforded 

the rights of the parent comes in the best interests step of the analysis. Id.

Here, Kristopher has been in out-of-home placement for 15 or more months of the most 

recent 22 months. Kristopher was removed from Katelyn’s care on August 3, 2020. The State filed 

the motion for termination of parental rights on April 1, 2022, and the termination trial was held 

in June 2022. Kristopher remained out of the home since his removal in August 2020. At the time 

of trial, Kristopher had been out of the home for 22 months. Thus, the statutory requirement for 

termination under § 43-292(7) has been met.

If an appellate court determines that the lower court correctly found that termination of 

parental rights is appropriate under one of the statutory grounds set forth in § 43-292, the appellate 

court need not further address the sufficiency of the evidence to support termination under any 

other statutory ground. In re Interest of Becka P. et al., 27 Neb. App. 489, 933 N.W.2d 873 (2019). 

Because the State presented clear and convincing evidence that Kristopher had been in an 

out-of-home placement for 15 or more months of the most recent 22 months, statutory grounds for 

termination of Ladarius’ parental rights exists.

Best Interests and Unfitness.

Ladarius assigns that the juvenile court erred in finding that it was in Kristopher’s best 

interests to terminate his parental rights. In addition to proving a statutory ground, the State must 

show that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the children. § 43-292; In re 

Interest of Isabel P. et al., 293 Neb. 62, 875 N.W.2d 848 (2016). Because the parent’s right to raise 

his or her children is constitutionally protected, the court may terminate parental rights only when 

the State shows that the parent is unfit. In re Interest of Isabel P. et al., supra. There is a rebuttable 

presumption that the best interests of the children are served by having a relationship with their 

parent. Id. This presumption is overcome only when the State has proved that the parent is unfit. 

Id. 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. Id. The best interests analysis 

and the parental fitness analysis are separate inquiries, but each examines essentially the same 

underlying facts as the other. Id.

Our review of the record shows that the Department’s case plans and court reports focused 

almost exclusively on Katelyn. The strategies and services provided for reunification did not 

mention Ladarius. The only “reasonable effort” in these plans and reports related to Ladarius was 

to “make monthly efforts to locate and engage Kristopher’s alleged father to establish paternity.”

This notation was included in the reports long after Ladarius was identified as the father.

Almost the entirety of the State’s evidence related to best interests and unfitness focused 

on Ladarius’ incarceration. Although incarceration alone cannot be the sole basis for terminating 

parental rights, it is a factor to be considered. In re Interest of Jahon S., 291 Neb. 97, 864 N.W.2d 

228 (2015). And we have noted that although incarceration itself may be involuntary as far as a 

parent is concerned, the criminal conduct causing the incarceration is voluntary. Id. Thus, in a case 

involving termination of parental rights, it is proper to consider a parent’s inability to perform his 

or her parental obligations because of incarceration. Id. We recognize and consider that it was 
- 8 -

Ladarius’ own actions that caused him to be incarcerated. We also consider the fact that at that the 

time the crime was committed, he was unaware that Kristopher was his son.

Maintaining monthly contact with the Department was one of Ladarius’ case plan goals. 

Because Ladarius was incarcerated out of state, the Department caseworkers did not see Ladarius 

in person. According to Daily, her attempts to call Ladarius directly at the correctional facility 

were unsuccessful (due to the facility not responding) and her communication with Ladarius was 

limited to monthly letters beginning in December 2020. Daily had only two phone calls with 

Ladarius, in February 2021 and January 2022. Daily missed a phone call from Ladarius in January 

2021 due to inclement weather in Nebraska. Peterson had only one phone call with Ladarius in 

May 2022. Ladarius agreed that he received letters regarding the status of the case and also 

received information from his mother who maintained contact with the caseworkers.

Daily testified that Ladarius communicated to her that he did not have the funds to 

consistently call her. Ladarius explained that rather than spend money on phone calls to the 

Department, he saved the funds to be used toward video visitation with Kristopher. In addition, 

Ladarius relied in part upon his mother’s communication with the Department.

Ladarius’ other case plan goal was to build a relationship with Kristopher through 

participation in regular video visitation, or creating plans to have in person visits with Kristopher. 

Although the case plans noted that Ladarius was to be provided monthly video visits with 

Kristopher, the Department did not do anything to facilitate these visits, leaving them up to 

Ladarius, his mother, and Katelyn to arrange. Ladarius testified that he received no information 

from the Department regarding how to access video visitation with Kristopher. The record notes 

that there was difficulty accessing the video application by these individuals as well as by the 

family support worker. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the Department made efforts 

to ensure the video visits with Ladarius occurred. Daily’s testimony and the Department case plans 

reflect that Ladarius’ mother was responsible for communicating relevant information regarding 

video visitation, Ladarius’ family was responsible for funding the application to have the visitation, 

and Katelyn was responsible for facilitating the video calls between Ladarius and Kristopher 

during her own parenting time. Daily testified that 6-7 video calls occurred during the case and 

Ladarius testified that the number was closer to 20-30. No documentation evidencing the number 

of video calls or describing the interactions between Ladarius and Kristopher was entered or 

received into evidence. Neither Katelyn nor the family support worker who observed these video 

visits were called to testify.

Although the Department case plans required Ladarius to establish a bond with Kristopher 

through video visitation, both Department caseworkers testified at trial that they did not believe a 

significant bond could be developed between a parent and toddler through video calls. Further, 

Peterson testified that because no bond was established though video visitation, it would not be in 

Kristopher’s best interests for him to meet his father after Ladarius’ release. Although Peterson 

briefly mentioned Kristopher’s fear of strangers, no evidence from a child psychologist or other 

clinician was offered to support this assertion or describe what services could be offered to assist 

Kristopher in meeting his father.

The Department did not require Ladarius to participate in any programs while he was 

incarcerated. Ladarius testified that he completed an anger management and a reintegration course, 

and was at one point enrolled in a parenting class. The Department did not seek any evaluations 
- 9 -

of Ladarius or attempt to gather information regarding his history or parenting abilities. Although 

we recognize that such background work may be difficult given that Ladarius was in Kentucky, 

there was essentially no effort to consider reunification with Ladarius for the stated reason that he 

was incarcerated out of state.

Finally, there appears to have been confusion at trial regarding Ladarius’ date of release as 

the caseworkers and Ladarius testified to different dates. Ladarius stated that he would be released 

in September 2022, a few months after the termination trial. Although Peterson testified that she 

had looked up the date of release on the Kentucky Inmates Website, which showed August 2023, 

the Department did not offer any further evidence or documentation from the Kentucky 

Department of Corrections to address the differing dates. We note that the record shows the 

Department was advised by Ladarius’ mother that he was eligible for parole in August 2022.

Kristopher has spent all but the first 6 weeks of his life in foster care, having been removed 

from his mother’s custody due to neglect. Ladarius did not know he was Kristopher’s father until 

genetic testing was completed a couple of months later, at which time he was already incarcerated. 

It is uncontested that Ladarius and Kristopher have never had any physical contact due to 

Kristopher’s presence in Nebraska and Ladarius’ incarceration in Kentucky.

In In re Interest of Denzel D., 31 Neb. App. 547, 985 N.W.2d 45 (2023), this court recently 

considered whether it was in the child’s best interests to terminate the parental rights of a father 

who did not learn that he was the biological father of the child until after he was already 

incarcerated. While the father remained incarcerated through the pendency of the juvenile case and 

the termination trial, we noted that he had demonstrated a commitment to the child through 

consistent phone calls, completing various classes and programming, and participation in the 

services required of him. Because the father actively worked to improve his parenting skills and 

to maintain a relationship with his child, we determined that termination of the father’s rights was 

not in the child’s best interests.

Similarly, in In re Interest of Xaiden N., 30 Neb. App. 378, 968 N.W.2d 856 (2021), we 

reversed the termination of a father’s parental rights. Although the State had proven the statutory 

ground for termination under § 43-292(7), we concluded that the State failed to prove that the 

father was unfit or that it was in the child’s best interests to terminate the father’s parental rights. 

In that case, the child was removed from his parents care when he was approximately 1 month old. 

Shortly thereafter, the father was arrested, and was incarcerated throughout the case. The father 

was not able to have in person visits and he was unable to arrange virtual visits. We found that the 

record was sparse as to what the father could have done while incarcerated to work toward 

reunification with his child. We noted that the father’s ability to meet with the caseworker and to 

have visitation was limited by the COVID-19 pandemic. We also noted the evidence that the father 

was to be released from incarceration approximately 5 months after the termination trial. Under 

these circumstances, we concluded that the father should have been given additional time to show 

he could make progress on his case goals and parent the child before the Department sought to 

terminate his parental rights.

We find the case before us to be similar to In re Interest of Denzel D. and In re Interest of 

Xaiden N. Ladarius did not learn that he was Kristopher’s biological father until after he was 

already incarcerated, and upon learning of his paternity, Ladarius sought to be part of the juvenile 

case. He has participated in video visits with Kristopher whenever possible, he has availed himself 
- 10 -

of certain programs, and he has made some efforts to stay abreast of the juvenile court proceedings, 

including direct communication with the Department, receiving information from his mother, and 

in reviewing the written information sent to him. Ladarius has clearly made it known to the 

Department that he desires to establish a relationship with Kristopher and to pursue reunification. 

In fact, the June 2022 case plan references that Ladarius stated on numerous occasions that he felt 

he had not been given a fair opportunity to work toward reunification with Kristopher.

We conclude that the State has not met its burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence 

that Ladarius is unfit or that it is in Kristopher’s best interests for Ladarius’ parental rights to be 

terminated at this time. Daily testified that one of her greatest concerns was that the Department 

did not have enough knowledge to evaluate Ladarius’ capacity as a parent. However, our review 

of the record does not show that the Department made any effort to obtain such information. 

Without evidence of Ladarius’ capacity as a parent, it is impossible to determine his fitness. Given 

Ladarius’ impending release from incarceration (whether September 2022 or August 2023), the 

Department could have obtained more complete information regarding Ladarius’ parental fitness 

and capacity, and if an assessment revealed Ladarius to be an appropriate parent for Kristopher, a 

plan to attempt reunification could have been developed. Ladarius expressed a willingness to come 

to Nebraska upon his release from incarceration for the purpose of pursuing reunification. We 

recognize that Kristopher does not know his father and he is placed with foster parents willing to 

adopt him. However, the termination of Ladarius’ parental rights, without clear and convincing 

evidence that he is an unfit parent, was error. Based upon these circumstances, we conclude that 

Ladarius should be given an opportunity to make progress on a reunification plan.

Under the circumstances of this case, we reverse the order of the juvenile court terminating 

Ladarius’ parental rights to Kristopher. See In re Interest of Giavonna G., 23 Neb. App. 853, 876 

N.W.2d 422 (2016) (termination of parental rights is final and complete severance of child from 

parent and removes entire bundle of parental rights; therefore, with such severe and final 

consequences, parental rights should be terminated only in absence of reasonable alternative and 

as last resort).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we reverse the order of the juvenile court terminating 

Ladarius’ parental rights to Kristopher and remand the cause for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR 

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.