- 529 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF LEYTON C. & LANDYN C.

Cite as 307 Neb. 529

In re Interest of Leyton C. and Landyn C., 

children under 18 years of age.

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. 

Madison C., appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed October 23, 2020. No. S-19-423.

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 lower 

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

the other.

2. Parental Rights: Proof. In order to terminate an individual’s parental 

rights, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that one of 

the statutory grounds enumerated in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292 (Reissue 

2016) exists and that termination is in the children’s best interests.

3. Juvenile Courts: Minors. The foremost purpose and objective of the 

Nebraska Juvenile Code is to promote and protect the juvenile’s best 

interests, and the juvenile code must be construed to assure the rights of 

all juveniles to care and protection.

4. Parental Rights: Presumptions: Proof. A child’s best interests are presumed to be served by having a relationship with his or her parent. This 

presumption is overcome only when the State has proved that the parent 

is unfit.

5. Parental Rights: Parent and Child. In proceedings to terminate parental rights, the law does not require perfection of a parent; instead, courts 

should look for the parent’s continued improvement in parenting skills 

and a beneficial relationship between parent and child.

6. Parental Rights. Last-minute attempts by parents to comply with the 

rehabilitation plan do not prevent termination of parental rights.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

12/11/2020 08:08 AM CST
- 530 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF LEYTON C. & LANDYN C.

Cite as 307 Neb. 529

7. ____. When a parent is unable or unwilling to rehabilitate himself or 

herself within a reasonable period of time, the child’s best interests 

require termination of parental rights.

8. Parental Rights: Time. The 15-month condition contained in Neb. Rev. 

Stat. § 43-292(7) (Reissue 2016) provides a reasonable timetable for 

parents to rehabilitate themselves.

9. Courts: Appeal and Error. Upon reversing a decision of the Nebraska 

Court of Appeals, the Nebraska Supreme Court may consider, as it 

deems appropriate, some or all of the assignments of error the Court of 

Appeals did not reach.

10. Parental Rights. One need not have physical possession of a child to 

demonstrate the existence of neglect contemplated by Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 43-292(2) (Reissue 2016).

11. Parent and Child: Child Custody. A parent’s failure to provide an 

environment to which his or her children can return can establish substantial, continual, and repeated neglect.

12. Parental Rights: Proof. Any one of the bases for termination of parental rights codified by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292 (Reissue 2016) can serve 

as the basis for the termination of parental rights when coupled with 

evidence that termination is in the best interests of the child.

Petition for further review from the Court of Appeals, 

Pirtle, Riedmann, and Welch, Judges, on appeal thereto 

from the Separate Juvenile Court of Lancaster County, Linda 

S. Porter, Judge. Judgment of Court of Appeals reversed, and 

cause remanded with direction.

Melanie A. Kirk, of Johnson, Flodman, Guenzel & Widger, 

for appellant.

Patrick F. Condon, Lancaster County Attorney, Maureen 

Lamski, and Thomas Gage, Senior Certified Law Student, for 

appellee.

Joy Shiffermiller, of Shiffermiller Law Office, P.C., L.L.O., 

guardian ad litem.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
- 531 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF LEYTON C. & LANDYN C.

Cite as 307 Neb. 529

Cassel, J.

INTRODUCTION

The juvenile court terminated a mother’s parental rights 

to her children. The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed, 

concluding that the State failed to prove that termination was 

in the children’s best interests. 1 We granted the petitions for 

further review of the children’s guardian ad litem (GAL) and 

the State. Because clear and convincing evidence supported 

termination of parental rights, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ 

decision and remand the cause with direction.

BACKGROUND

Madison C. is the mother of Leyton C., born in August 

2015, and Landyn C., born in February 2017. The children’s 

father has relinquished his parental rights and is not involved 

in this appeal.

Procedural Background

In July 2016, the State filed a petition seeking to adjudicate 

Leyton. 2 The petition alleged that Madison left Leyton in the 

care of Madison’s mother in November 2015 without making 

proper provisions for his care, that Madison tested positive for 

methamphetamine in June 2016, that Madison failed to consistently provide a safe and stable home for Leyton, and that 

Leyton was at risk of harm.

In September 2016, the juvenile court adjudicated Leyton 

following Madison’s plea of no contest to the allegations in 

the petition. The court ordered Madison not to remove Leyton 

from his maternal grandparents’ home, where Madison and 

Leyton were residing. It further ordered Madison to refrain 

from using or possessing controlled substances and to submit 

to random drug testing.

1 In re Interest of Leyton C. & Landyn C., 28 Neb. App. 95, 940 N.W.2d 288 

(2020).

2 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) (Supp. 2015).
- 532 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF LEYTON C. & LANDYN C.

Cite as 307 Neb. 529

In a December 1, 2016, dispositional order, the court removed 

Leyton from Madison’s care. The court placed Leyton’s physical custody with Madison’s mother and allowed Madison to 

reside with them. The court noted that Madison failed to enter 

outpatient substance abuse treatment.

In January 2017, the court prohibited any contact between 

Leyton and Madison’s boyfriend, Jaden R. In February, the State 

moved for an emergency placement change because Madison’s 

mother, while accompanied by Leyton, gave Jaden a ride. The 

court subsequently placed Leyton with Madison’s sister.

In March 2017, the State filed a supplemental petition, 

seeking to adjudicate Landyn, Madison’s newborn baby, as 

a juvenile under § 43-247(3)(a) (Reissue 2016). The petition 

alleged that Landyn was in a situation dangerous to life or 

limb or injurious to his health or morals because his meconium 

tested positive for amphetamines, Madison tested positive for 

methamphetamine, and Madison failed to comply with orders 

to correct the adjudicated issues regarding Leyton.

In April 2017, the court adjudicated Landyn after Madison 

pled no contest to the allegations of the supplemental petition. 

The court placed Landyn in a nonrelative foster home. Leyton 

joined Landyn at that foster home in July.

In November 2017, after Madison began cooperating with 

services, the court ordered that she have monitored parenting time with the children. The State later moved for an order 

approving a change in placement. On January 3, 2018, the 

court approved placing the children with Madison.

On July 3, 2018, the court entered an order directing placement of the children outside Madison’s home. It referenced 

Madison’s “failure to participate in virtually all court ordered 

services over the last three months, including individual 

counseling/treatment, random drug testing, and family support.”

On October 11, 2018, the State filed a motion for termination of Madison’s parental rights. It alleged that termination 

of such rights was in the children’s best interests, and it set 

forth several statutory grounds for termination under Neb. Rev. 
- 533 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF LEYTON C. & LANDYN C.

Cite as 307 Neb. 529

Stat. § 43-292(2), (4), and (6) (Reissue 2016). As to Leyton 

only, it alleged the ground enumerated in § 43-292(7).

Termination Hearing

The juvenile court conducted a hearing over several dates 

beginning on December 14, 2018, and concluding on February 

26, 2019.

The evidence established that at the time of Leyton’s birth, 

Madison was 181⁄2 years old and living with her parents. 

Approximately 1 month later, in September 2015, Madison 

met Jaden. Their relationship moved quickly. In November, 

Madison accompanied Jaden to South Dakota for 3 days. Upon 

her return, she was cited for child abandonment and unlawful 

use of a motor vehicle. At trial, Madison did not recall admitting to a police officer that she had left Leyton for approximately 18 days.

Jaden became controlling. Madison testified that he would 

not let her return home to see Leyton or call her family. When 

she was allowed to see her family, it was usually for “30 minutes at max” and in Jaden’s presence. Madison testified that 

starting in 2016, she would be “lucky [to] see [Leyton] at all 

during the week.” Because remarks by Jaden caused Madison 

to be concerned for Leyton’s safety, she left Leyton with 

her family.

In January 2016, Jaden began physically abusing Madison. 

He punched and kicked her and used other implements to hurt 

her. He threatened her life at knifepoint. One witness characterized Jaden’s abuse of Madison as “horrific” and “severe.” 

Madison testified that Jaden hurt her several times a week until 

May 2017, when he became incarcerated.

According to Madison, Jaden made her use methamphetamine starting in 2016. But she admitted that not all of the 

methamphetamine she used with Jaden was against her will. 

After she tested positive for methamphetamine in June, she 

claimed that she had been forced to use the drug. When both 

Madison and Landyn tested positive for methamphetamine 

in approximately March 2017, Madison maintained that a 
- 534 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF LEYTON C. & LANDYN C.

Cite as 307 Neb. 529

friend had put something in her drink. Madison’s case manager from July 2016 to May 2017 testified that Madison never 

admitted to “knowingly” using methamphetamine.

In June 2016, Madison completed a substance abuse evaluation which recommended “Level One Outpatient Therapy.” 

Madison did not engage in the recommended outpatient treatment or in individual therapy. According to Madison’s case 

manager, Madison “wanted to get through the pregnancy and 

ensure that Landyn would be born safely before engaging in 

services.” Her cooperation with drug testing was inconsistent. 

Madison’s case manager testified that she missed many tests 

between November 2016 and April 2017.

Emily Goodman, a licensed independent mental health practitioner, initially met with Madison in March 2017 to engage in 

outpatient drug and alcohol treatment. Goodman set up recurring appointments to meet with Madison twice per week, but 

Madison did not attend between March 10 and June 20. As of 

July 14, when weekly therapy was recommended, Madison 

maintained regular attendance, not missing an appointment 

until September 29. Goodman believed Madison had one of 

the most severe cases of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 

that Goodman had seen. Goodman last met with Madison in 

March 2018.

Madison agreed that she did not engage in any services until 

the fall of 2017. She explained that “Jaden was still around so, 

I mean, it was kind of difficult and I didn’t know what was 

going on.” After Madison’s parenting time was reduced to once 

per week in August 2017, Madison’s participation improved 

and she began attending visits. Her parenting time was then 

increased to twice per week. In November, the Department of 

Health and Human Services recommended monitored parenting 

time because of Madison’s compliance with services.

After placement of the children with Madison in January 

2018, Madison’s participation in services waned. She met with 

Goodman once in January, even though it was recommended 

that they meet weekly. She ceased regularly submitting to 
- 535 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF LEYTON C. & LANDYN C.

Cite as 307 Neb. 529

drug testing and attending team meetings. When Goodman 

brought up Madison’s noncompliance with drug testing, 

Madison replied that she was tired of others being involved in 

her life and “just wanted to be done with all of it.” Madison 

relapsed using methamphetamine in approximately March, 

explaining that she feared losing her children and wanted to 

“numb [her] feelings.”

In approximately April 2018, Madison began a relationship 

with Riley S. She was not honest with her caseworker or her 

treatment team about the relationship. At trial, she admitted 

using drugs with him. Because Riley “had a warrant out for 

assault, . . . he was not allowed to be around the [children].” 

Madison admitted that Riley was in her apartment during 

a visit.

Gay Malone, a child and family service specialist with 

the Department of Health and Human Services, began working on Madison’s case in May 2017. At that time, services 

implemented for Madison included random drug screening, 

supervised visitation, and individual therapy. Madison did not 

consistently participate in those services. Malone testified that 

Madison either was unavailable for visits or was emotionally 

upset at such visits about trying to pay rent and having the 

case ongoing. In May 2018, “drop-ins” were implemented in 

an effort to ensure the children’s safety, but Madison did not 

cooperate with the drop-ins.

On July 2, 2018, the children were removed from Madison’s 

care. Hair follicle testing on the children completed on July 6 

revealed that Leyton tested positive for exposure to methamphetamine and marijuana and Landyn tested positive for exposure to marijuana. Madison denied using methamphetamine, 

but stated that her friends had used the drug in her apartment. At the termination trial, however, Madison admitted that 

Leyton tested positive for methamphetamine because she used 

the drug in her residence.

In July 2018, Sarah Worley began providing individual 

therapy to Madison, focusing on PTSD and substance use. 
- 536 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF LEYTON C. & LANDYN C.

Cite as 307 Neb. 529

Madison initially missed four sessions in July and August and 

did not attend on a consistent basis. Madison began drug testing on July 24, but she participated infrequently in August.

Worley completed an updated substance abuse evaluation, 

which recommended residential treatment. Upon Madison’s 

arrival for residential treatment in August, she tested positive 

for methamphetamine, amphetamines, marijuana, and opiates. 

Madison ultimately left residential treatment after a few days, 

because someone she knew at the time of her abuse was at the 

program. Worley believed that having such a person present 

would have made treatment more difficult. At trial, Madison 

also testified that she left that treatment because it “wasn’t 

[her] niche,” explaining that residential treatment “was too 

much.” Worley helped Madison find an alternative way to 

address her substance abuse needs. Approximately a week after 

Madison left residential treatment, she began intensive outpatient treatment. The record is unclear whether she began that 

treatment in August or September.

The court received recordings of September 2018 telephone 

calls between Madison and Riley while he was in jail and 

of a jail visit with Riley. At the time of the telephone calls, 

Madison had told Worley that she was no longer dating Riley. 

In the recordings, Madison and Riley expressed their love 

for one another and their desire to move out of state and be 

together forever.

The conversations between Madison and Riley concerned 

Malone. One telephone call occurred during a visit, and Malone 

believed she could hear Leyton’s voice. Malone was disturbed 

that Madison’s mother—who had supported Madison’s relationship with Jaden—was aware that Madison accepted a jail 

telephone call from Riley. Malone noted that Madison and 

Riley talked as though he had stayed in Madison’s apartment 

since the spring of 2018. Malone was troubled that Madison 

would not sign a release to allow her most recent evaluator to 

talk to Madison’s parents—with whom Madison was reportedly living at the time. Malone questioned whether Madison 
- 537 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF LEYTON C. & LANDYN C.

Cite as 307 Neb. 529

was truly living with her parents because Madison said during 

one of the calls that she needed to get her belongings from 

Riley’s grandmother’s house. Malone testified that when she 

viewed the jail video between Riley and Madison, she “d[id] 

not see a stress — [PTSD] reaction” when Madison was telling 

Riley about Jaden’s claims of being violent in prison.

In September 2018, Madison tested positive for methamphetamine. In October, Madison twice tested positive for clonazepam, a medication for which she did not have a prescription. 

Worley was troubled that Madison did not take responsibility 

for the clonazepam result. At trial, Madison attributed testing 

positive for clonazepam to taking one of Riley’s medications. 

She explained that although she “broke up with him after he 

got outta jail,” she “hung out with him” in October. Worley 

testified that Madison told her in September that she had broken up with Riley “because of his drug use and [because] he 

wasn’t a good influence in her life.” Madison tested positive for 

morphine in December. Worley believed that the low level of 

drug detected was consistent with Madison’s report of having 

eaten poppyseeds.

Worley testified that Madison had made excellent progress 

in the 3 months prior to trial. Worley explained that Madison 

had been “continuously attending treatment,” had been participating fully, and had been honest about what had happened to 

her. Worley noted that Madison had completed intensive outpatient treatment and that Madison continued to engage with 

relapse prevention services. Worley felt that Madison’s prognosis was “good.” Although Madison had made progress during 

individual therapy, Worley testified that Madison still had work 

to do with regard to her PTSD.

A registered nurse who has worked extensively in the area 

of domestic violence offered general testimony. She testified 

that victims of domestic violence sometimes deny or minimize 

what is occurring or want to disbelieve that someone could 

do such things to them. Recovery takes time, and substance 

abuse is often seen along with domestic violence because drug 
- 538 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF LEYTON C. & LANDYN C.

Cite as 307 Neb. 529

usage is a coping mechanism. According to the registered 

nurse, if there are coexisting issues of domestic violence and 

substance abuse, it is expected that the recovery time would 

be longer. Recovery from domestic violence can be manifested 

in different ways, including the ability to function on a daily 

basis, obtaining employment, managing emotional or psychological symptoms from the violence, or managing substance 

abuse. The registered nurse was not familiar with Madison 

aside from “very limited information” and had no knowledge 

whether any of her testimony applied to Madison.

Obtaining employment had long been a goal set for Madison. 

A November 2017 order directed her to work with family support services regarding gaining employment. But Madison 

did not take advantage of the services offered. Malone was 

unaware of Madison’s having any job prior to the filing of 

the motion to terminate parental rights in October 2018. That 

month, Madison obtained a job, working 2 days a week. She 

was unemployed at the time of the February 2019 hearing.

The evidence regarding Madison’s parenting of the children 

was positive. Goodman testified that Madison was able to 

adequately and appropriately parent her children, and she did 

not observe anything leading her to believe that Madison was 

a safety concern or a risk to the children. A family support 

worker similarly testified that she never had to intervene due 

to safety concerns. About the only concern expressed by any 

witness was that Madison “wasn’t fully parenting the children” 

because her family often attended visits and interacted with 

the children.

Madison believed that she had changed and that she would 

no longer endanger her children. Madison testified that she 

knows how to ask for help and that she does not use drugs. She 

recognized that Riley was not a good influence and should not 

be around her children.

Malone believed termination of Madison’s parental rights 

was in the children’s best interests. She explained that the 

children deserve the stability that comes from permanency and 
- 539 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF LEYTON C. & LANDYN C.

Cite as 307 Neb. 529

that both children had been out of Madison’s care for 16 months 

of the most recent 22 months. Malone testified that Madison 

had been unable to demonstrate the sustained change that was 

necessary for her to provide a stable and permanent home for 

the children. Malone recognized that Madison demonstrated 

a change from August 2017 through February 2018, but that 

Madison then stopped participating in services, resulting in the 

children’s removal from her care. Malone did not believe that 

survivors of domestic violence should be given extra time to 

reunify with their children. She explained that “children don’t 

understand that the reason that they’re not reunified . . . is 

because their mother was a survivor of domestic violence, or 

used substances to delay her recovery.”

Other witnesses provided insight on the children’s interests. 

Goodman testified that “the more removals from a primary 

caregiver[,] the increase of traumatic response for children.” 

Worley testified that being in foster care for an extended 

period can damage a child’s “sense of self and . . . belonging.” 

Leyton’s therapist testified that it was “especially harmful for 

younger children to move back and forth between home environments because . . . the time of attachment and significant 

development for most children occurs between those ages of 

zero and five.” Disruption may cause a young child to believe 

that he or she is unsafe or that the world is unsafe. She testified that Leyton needed permanency “as immediately as possible,” noting that he had been removed twice and that he was 

very young.

Juvenile Court’s Decision

In April 2019, the court entered an order terminating 

Madison’s parental rights. The court observed that Madison 

“has struggled with honesty when it comes to her own use 

of controlled substances and her relationships with violent 

partners” throughout this case. It stated that the testimony of 

Madison and Riley that they had ended their relationship “did 

not appear credible and appeared to be situationally motivated by the pending termination of parental rights rather than 
- 540 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF LEYTON C. & LANDYN C.

Cite as 307 Neb. 529

any honest recognition by [Madison] that he was an unhealthy 

influence for her or for her children.”

The court found that the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Madison’s parental rights was 

warranted. It found the State proved grounds for termination 

under § 43-292(2), (4), and (6) as to both children and under 

§ 43-292(7) as to Leyton. The court also found that termination 

of parental rights was in the children’s best interests.

Court of Appeals’ Decision

Upon Madison’s appeal, a majority of the Court of Appeals 

determined that the juvenile court erred in concluding that 

termination of Madison’s parental rights was in the children’s 

best interests. Because the majority’s resolution on that issue 

was dispositive, it did not consider whether the State proved a 

statutory ground for termination.

The majority found that Madison demonstrated a continued 

improvement in her parenting skills and had established a 

beneficial relationship with her children. The majority recognized that it would have been in the children’s best interests 

for Madison to end her relationship with Jaden and engage 

in services, but stated that “her inability or unwillingness to 

do so must be viewed in consideration of her young age and 

the abusive relationship in which she was transfixed.” 3 After 

evaluating Madison’s progress “in the context of the situation 

in which the parent exists,” the majority found that termination of Madison’s parental rights “came too quickly.” 4 The 

majority reasoned that “[g]iven Madison’s young age and 

trauma experience, we cannot find that the timeline of this 

case provides her with a ‘reasonable time’ in which to rehabilitate herself.” 5

3 In re Interest of Leyton C. & Landyn C., supra note 1, 28 Neb. App. at 

107, 940 N.W.2d at 296.

4 Id. at 109, 940 N.W.2d at 297.

5 Id. at 110, 940 N.W.2d at 298.
- 541 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF LEYTON C. & LANDYN C.

Cite as 307 Neb. 529

The dissenting judge noted that the juvenile court specifically 

recognized Madison had struggled with honesty throughout the 

case. The judge found “particularly concerning . . . Madison’s 

inability to separate herself from the type of unhealthy relationships that precipitated many of her problems.” 6

We granted the petitions for further review of the GAL and 

the State.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

The GAL assigns that the Court of Appeals erred in (1) finding that Madison had made “‘continued progress’” in correcting the conditions that led to the adjudication, (2) finding that 

the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that 

Madison was unable or unwilling to rehabilitate herself within 

a reasonable time, and (3) finding that the State failed to prove 

by clear and convincing evidence that the children’s best interests were served by terminating Madison’s parental rights.

The State assigns that the Court of Appeals erred in (1) failing to follow the long line of cases establishing that juveniles 

should not have to wait for uncertain parental maturity 7 and (2) 

failing to give deference to the trial judge’s assessment of credibility and relying heavily on the testimony of Madison.

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. When the evidence is in conflict, 

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

lower court observed the witnesses and accepted one version of 

the facts over the other. 8

6 Id. at 115, 940 N.W.2d at 301 (Pirtle, Judge, dissenting).

7 In re Interest of Alec S., 294 Neb. 784, 884 N.W.2d 701 (2016); In re 

Interest of Jahon S., 291 Neb. 97, 864 N.W.2d 228 (2015); In re Interest 

of Octavio B. et al., 290 Neb. 589, 861 N.W.2d 415 (2015).

8 In re Interest of Vladimir G., 306 Neb. 127, 944 N.W.2d 309 (2020).
- 542 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF LEYTON C. & LANDYN C.

Cite as 307 Neb. 529

ANALYSIS

[2] In order to terminate an individual’s parental rights, the 

State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that one of 

the statutory grounds enumerated in § 43-292 exists and that 

termination is in the children’s best interests. 9 The Court of 

Appeals began with the best interests component, finding it to 

be dispositive. We likewise begin our analysis by considering 

the children’s best interests.

Best Interests

[3] The GAL and the State collectively assign five errors 

which essentially challenge the Court of Appeals’ determination that the juvenile court erred in finding that the State 

proved by clear and convincing evidence that terminating 

Madison’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. 

We are mindful that the foremost purpose and objective of the 

Nebraska Juvenile Code is to promote and protect the juvenile’s best interests, and the juvenile code must be construed to 

assure the rights of all juveniles to care and protection. 10

[4] A child’s best interests are presumed to be served by 

having a relationship with his or her parent. This presumption 

is overcome only when the State has proved that the parent is 

unfit. 11 In the context of the constitutionally protected relationship between a parent and a child, 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 has caused, or probably 

will result in, detriment to a child’s well-being. 12 The best 

interests analysis and the parental fitness analysis are separate 

9 In re Interest of Donald B. & Devin B., 304 Neb. 239, 933 N.W.2d 864 

(2019).

10 In re Interest of Veronica H., 272 Neb. 370, 721 N.W.2d 651 (2006).

11 In re Interest of Alec S., supra note 7.

12 Id.
- 543 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF LEYTON C. & LANDYN C.

Cite as 307 Neb. 529

inquiries, but each examines essentially the same underlying 

facts as the other. 13

The children’s best interests and Madison’s fitness to parent 

them were affected by her drug use and her choice of intimate partners. There is no dispute that Madison began using 

methamphetamine in 2016, that Landyn’s meconium tested 

positive for amphetamines, and that hair follicle testing of the 

children in July 2018 showed that Leyton had been exposed 

to methamphetamine and marijuana and that Landyn had been 

exposed to marijuana. Goodman testified that parents who are 

actively under the influence of methamphetamine typically 

show difficulty providing a safe environment for their children. 

At the termination trial, evidence was adduced regarding three 

of Madison’s relationships with men. All three men had used 

drugs and had spent time in jail. Such relationships put the 

children’s safety at risk.

[5] We have stated that in proceedings to terminate parental 

rights, the law does not require perfection of a parent; instead, 

courts should look for the parent’s continued improvement in 

parenting skills and a beneficial relationship between parent 

and child. 14 The GAL assigns that the Court of Appeals erred in 

finding that “Madison has made continued progress” 15 and that 

“the State has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence 

that Madison is unable or unwilling to rehabilitate herself 

within a reasonable time.” 16 We agree.

[6] Madison had been formally under the juvenile court’s 

jurisdiction since Leyton’s adjudication in September 2016. 

It was not until approximately a year later that she began 

complying with services implemented to correct the conditions leading to the adjudication. Her compliance lasted for 

13 Id.

14 In re Interest of Joseph S. et al., 291 Neb. 953, 870 N.W.2d 141 (2015).

15 In re Interest of Leyton C. & Landyn C., supra note 1, 28 Neb. App. at 

111, 940 N.W.2d at 298.

16 Id. at 112, 940 N.W.2d at 299.
- 544 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF LEYTON C. & LANDYN C.

Cite as 307 Neb. 529

roughly 5 months and resulted in the return of her children to 

her care. Madison then independently cared for the children 

for approximately 6 months—from January to July 2018—

and became overwhelmed after 2 months. Her progress and 

participation following the children’s return was short lived, 

and the children were removed in July. The Court of Appeals 

focused on Madison’s progress from September, when she 

began substance abuse treatment, through the termination hearing that concluded in February 2019. But Madison began that 

substance abuse treatment 1 month before the filing of the 

termination motion. Since at least February 1, 2017, she had 

been ordered by the court to complete outpatient treatment 

for substance abuse. Last-minute attempts by parents to comply with the rehabilitation plan do not prevent termination of 

parental rights. 17

The Court of Appeals excused Madison’s initial inability 

to progress due in part to her abusive relationship with Jaden. 

The court stated that Madison made “overall progress” after 

ending that relationship. 18 But it took Madison several months 

after ending her relationship with Jaden to begin participating 

with services. And, as we noted above, shortly after the children were placed with Madison, her progress went downhill. 

She used methamphetamine. She stopped cooperating with 

drug tests and other services. She avoided communication 

with her caseworker. Rather than showing continued progress, 

Madison’s involvement in services has fluctuated. At the time 

of trial, she was on an upward trend, but her history makes it 

difficult to believe she is committed to make sustained progress. While we are sensitive to the abuse suffered by Madison, 

our focus is on the children’s best interests.

The Court of Appeals also downplayed Madison’s “questionable choices,” stating that “most of these choices occurred 

17 In re Interest of Alec S., supra note 7.

18 In re Interest of Leyton C. & Landyn C., supra note 1, 28 Neb. App. at 

108, 940 N.W.2d at 297.
- 545 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF LEYTON C. & LANDYN C.

Cite as 307 Neb. 529

before she engaged in mental health and substance abuse 

treatment.” 19 We have trouble reconciling that statement with 

the evidence that Madison tested positive for methamphetamine in September 2018, tested positive for a nonprescribed 

medication twice in October, and was still spending time with 

Riley in October following his release from jail.

The State contends that the Court of Appeals erred by taking 

Madison’s testimony at face value and failing to consider the 

juvenile court’s assessment of credibility. The juvenile court 

specifically stated that Madison had “struggled with honesty” 

regarding her drug use and intimate partners. Even so, the 

Court of Appeals expressed reluctance to “discredit” Madison’s 

denial of any drug use after early September 2018. 20

The evidence warrants deferring to the juvenile court’s 

assessment of Madison’s credibility. According to Goodman, 

honesty is pivotal to having a positive outcome in a therapeutic relationship. It appears that after Madison told Goodman 

that she “wanted to find somebody who wasn’t involved in 

any criminal activity, that did not use any drugs,” Madison 

became involved with Riley—somebody involved in criminal activity who used drugs. At trial, Madison admitted that 

she was not honest with her caseworker or her treatment 

team about her relationship with Riley. Worley discussed the 

importance of being honest in treatment. Although there was 

evidence that Madison and Riley discussed living together and 

exchanging rings, Madison had not shared that information 

in therapy with Worley. Madison lied about Riley’s being in 

her apartment during a visit with the children. She admitted 

lying to the court about using drugs with Riley and lying to 

her family about her drug use. Worley believed that Madison 

was honest with her as far as drug use. Thus, Worley did not 

think that Madison voluntarily used drugs prior to March 

2018. But at trial, Madison admitted that some of her drug use 

with Jaden was voluntary. And Madison told an evaluator in 

19 Id. at 109, 940 N.W.2d at 297.

20 Id. at 110, 940 N.W.2d at 298.
- 546 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF LEYTON C. & LANDYN C.

Cite as 307 Neb. 529

November that she relapsed on methamphetamine in August, 

but the evidence showed that she used in March, April, 

and May.

Although the Court of Appeals highlighted Madison’s youth 

and expressed awareness that “children should not be suspended in foster care awaiting uncertain parental maturity,” 21

we agree with the State that this is not a case where the children should be forced to forgo permanency and linger in foster 

care. Leyton has been placed with Madison’s mother, then 

with Madison’s sister, then with a nonrelative foster family, 

then with Madison, and then back to the foster family. Landyn 

has been placed with the nonrelative foster family, then with 

Madison, and then back to the foster family. Goodman testified that “the more removals from a primary caregiver[,] the 

increase of traumatic response for children.” Leyton’s therapist 

testified that Leyton was experiencing anxiety and had a history of nightmares and night terrors.

[7,8] We have stated that when a parent is unable or unwilling to rehabilitate himself or herself within a reasonable period 

of time, the child’s best interests require termination of parental rights. 22 The 15-month condition contained in § 43-292(7) 

provides a reasonable timetable for parents to rehabilitate 

themselves. 23 Madison has failed to do so. Upon our de novo 

review of the record, we conclude that the Court of Appeals 

erred in finding that the State failed to prove by clear and 

convincing evidence that the termination of Madison’s parental 

rights was in the children’s best interests. We reverse the Court 

of Appeals’ decision in that regard.

21 Id. at 112, 940 N.W.2d at 299.

22 See, e.g., In re Interest of Walter W., 274 Neb. 859, 744 N.W.2d 55 (2008); 

In re Interest of Destiny A. et al., 274 Neb. 713, 742 N.W.2d 758 (2007); 

In re Interest of Phoenix L., 270 Neb. 870, 708 N.W.2d 786 (2006), 

disapproved on other grounds, In re Interest of Destiny A. et al., supra

note 22.

23 See In re Interest of Alec S., supra note 7.
- 547 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF LEYTON C. & LANDYN C.

Cite as 307 Neb. 529

Statutory Grounds

[9] Upon reversing a decision of the Court of Appeals, we 

may consider, as we deem appropriate, some or all of the 

assignments of error the Court of Appeals did not reach. 24 Due 

to its conclusion that the State failed to prove termination was 

not in the children’s best interests, the Court of Appeals did not 

address whether statutory grounds for termination existed.

The juvenile court determined that the State proved grounds 

as to both children under § 43-292(2), (4), and (6), and as to 

Leyton under § 43-292(7). We begin with consideration of 

whether the State proved by clear and convincing evidence 

that Madison “substantially and continuously or repeatedly 

neglected and refused to give the juvenile or a sibling of the 

juvenile necessary parental care and protection.” 25

[10] The evidence presented at the termination hearing demonstrated that Madison failed to provide her young children 

with necessary parental care and protection for a prolonged 

period of time. We recognize that one need not have physical 

possession of a child to demonstrate the existence of neglect 

contemplated by § 43-292(2). 26 During Madison’s relationship 

with Jaden, which lasted over 11⁄2 years, she left Leyton with 

her parents, visiting him infrequently. Landyn was placed out 

of Madison’s care for nearly the first year of his life. He has 

spent a mere 6 months in Madison’s care.

[11] A parent’s failure to provide an environment to which 

his or her children can return can establish substantial, continual, and repeated neglect. 27 Madison’s drug use has impeded 

the ability to return the children to her care. She began using 

methamphetamine prior to Leyton’s adjudication and continued using the drug up until the month prior to the filing of 

the motion to terminate parental rights. She continued using 

24 McEwen v. Nebraska State College Sys., 303 Neb. 552, 931 N.W.2d 120 

(2019).

25 See § 43-292(2).

26 See In re Interest of Joseph S. et al., supra note 14.

27 Id.
- 548 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

307 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF LEYTON C. & LANDYN C.

Cite as 307 Neb. 529

this drug even though services were offered to help her and 

even after beginning substance abuse treatment. Further, she 

exposed the children to drugs as evidenced by Landyn’s meconium testing positive and by the results of their hair follicle 

tests. She also subjected the children to individuals who posed 

a danger and who used methamphetamine and other drugs. 

Madison failed to consistently participate in family services 

offered to help her reunite with her children.

[12] The State proved by clear and convincing evidence 

that Madison neglected to provide necessary parental care and 

protection for her children. Any one of the bases for termination of parental rights codified by § 43-292 can serve as the 

basis for the termination of parental rights when coupled with 

evidence that termination is in the best interests of the child. 28

Having determined that the State proved a statutory ground 

enumerated in § 43-292, we need not consider the sufficiency 

of the evidence concerning the other statutory grounds for termination identified by the juvenile court. 29 Because the State 

proved both that a statutory ground existed for termination of 

Madison’s parental rights and that termination of such rights 

was in the children’s best interests, the Court of Appeals erred 

by reversing the juvenile court’s judgment.

CONCLUSION

Upon our de novo review of the record, we conclude that 

the State adduced clear and convincing evidence that termination of Madison’s parental rights was in the children’s best 

interests. Because we also determine that the State proved a 

statutory ground for termination, we reverse the decision of the 

Court of Appeals and remand the cause with direction to affirm 

the judgment of the juvenile court.

Reversed and remanded with direction.

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

29 See id.