- 831 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

In re Interest of Steven S., Jr., et al., 

children under 18 years of age. 

State of Nebraska, appellee and cross-appellee, 

v. Steven S., Sr., appellant, and Jennette S., 

appellee and cross-appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed December 10, 2019. Nos. A-18-1183 through A-18-1185.

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. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292 (Reissue 2016) provides 11 separate conditions, any one of which 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.

3. 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.

4. Parental Rights: Evidence: Appeal and Error. 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 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292 (Reissue 2016), the appellate court need not 

further address the sufficiency of the evidence to support termination 

under any other statutory ground.

5. Parental Rights: Proof. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292 (Reissue 

2016), once the State shows that statutory grounds for termination of 

parental rights exist, the State must then show that termination is in the 

best interests of the child.

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

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

12/17/2019 09:06 AM CST
- 832 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

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

is unfit.

7. Constitutional Law: Parental Rights: Words and Phrases. 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.

8. Rules of the Supreme Court: Appeal and Error. A cross-appellant 

is required to comply with the rules on cross-appeals, including the 

requirement that the cross-appellant designate on the cover of his or her 

brief that it is a cross-appeal, and set forth the cross-appeal in a separate 

division of the brief entitled “Brief on Cross-Appeal.”

9. ____: ____. An appellate court may consider a party’s cross-appeal, 

even though the party’s brief violated Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(D)(4) 

(rev. 2014) requiring a separate section for a cross-appeal, where the 

form and presentation of the assignments of error in the party’s brief 

conformed with Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(D)(1) (rev. 2014), which 

applies to an appellant’s brief.

Appeal from the County Court for Scotts Bluff County: Kris 

D. Mickey, Judge. Affirmed.

Gretchen Traw, Deputy Scotts Bluff County Public Defender, 

for appellant.

Rhonda R. Flower, of Law Office of Rhonda R. Flower, for 

appellee.

Riedmann, Bishop, and Arterburn, Judges.

Per Curiam.

I. INTRODUCTION

Steven S., Sr., appeals, and Jennette S. cross-appeals, from 

an order entered by the Scotts Bluff County Court, sitting 

as a juvenile court, which terminated their parental rights to 

their three minor children: Steven S., Jr. (Steven Jr.) (case No. 

A-18-1183), Aodhan S. (case No. A-18-1184), and Genevive S. 

(case No. A-18-1185). We consolidate these three appeals for 

disposition, and we affirm the order of the juvenile court.
- 833 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

II. BACKGROUND

1. Procedural Background

Steven and Jennette are the natural parents of Steven Jr., 

born in September 2005; Genevive, born in October 2011; and 

Aodhan, born in May 2013. Steven and Jennette are married, 

but by the time of the hearing on the State’s motions to terminate their parental rights, they were living separately.

The current proceedings involving this family were initiated in October 2017. However, this is not the first time the 

family has been involved with either the juvenile court or the 

Department of Health and Human Services (the Department). 

In fact, the family has a lengthy history with the Department. 

In 2000, the Department was contacted twice regarding Steven 

and Jennette’s treatment of an older son, who is not a subject 

of the current proceedings. Both reports indicated that Steven 

and Jennette were neglecting the older son, who was then an 

infant, by failing to properly feed him, failing to bathe him, 

and failing to obtain necessary medical care for him. In 2001, 

Steven and Jennette’s older daughter, who is also not a subject 

of the current proceedings, was removed from their care after 

she was taken to the hospital and tested positive for opiates 

and marijuana. These children are no longer in the custody of 

Steven and Jennette.

In 2006, the Department received a report that Steven and 

Jennette were neglecting Steven Jr., who was then 1 year old. 

The reporter indicated that the family home was “in a very bad 

state and [was] very dirty with cat and dog feces in the house.” 

In 2011, Steven and Jennette’s niece, who was living with 

them, reported that both Steven and Jennette were physically 

abusive to her. She had injuries consistent with her reports. 

Testimony from the termination hearing revealed that Steven 

was ultimately convicted of sexually abusing the niece and was 

jailed for 1 year.

From 2013 to 2016, the Department received four additional 

reports regarding Steven and Jennette. Each of these reports 
- 834 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

indicated that Steven and Jennette were neglecting Steven Jr., 

Genevive, and Aodhan by not bathing the children, not providing a clean and safe home environment, and not obtaining necessary medical care for them. After each of these reports, the 

Department provided services to assist the family. In March 

2017, 6 months prior to the initiation of the current court proceedings, the Department received another report regarding 

Steven and Jennette’s neglect of the children. This report indicated that Aodhan was not receiving necessary medical care 

and that the children smelled of urine and body odor.

On October 6, 2017, the current proceedings were initiated when the State filed petitions alleging that Steven Jr., 

Genevive, and Aodhan were within the meaning of Neb. Rev. 

Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) (Reissue 2016) due to the fault or habits 

of Steven and Jennette. We note that at the time the petitions 

were filed, the family was still receiving assistance from the 

Department based on previous issues of neglect.

Also on October 6, 2017, the State filed motions asking 

that the children immediately be placed in the custody of the 

Department. In support of the motions, the State provided an 

affidavit authored by a deputy with the Scotts Bluff County 

sheriff’s office. The affidavit indicated that the deputy visited the family home on October 6, after the Department had 

received another report regarding Steven and Jennette’s neglect 

of the children. The deputy stated that upon his arrival at the 

home, he “was almost immediately overwhelmed with the 

smell of ammonia, the source of which appeared to be cat 

urine.” The deputy observed numerous dirty dishes and dirty 

laundry scattered throughout the house. In addition, there were 

cat feces on the floor and on some of the laundry. The deputy 

indicated that “this [w]as one of the worst homes he has been 

in while working for the Sheriff’s Department.” The deputy 

believed that the children needed to be removed from the 

home for their safety. Ultimately, the juvenile court granted 

the State’s motions for temporary custody, placing the children 

in the custody of the Department and outside of Steven and 
- 835 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

Jennette’s home. The children have remained outside of their 

parents’ home since October 6.

Subsequent to the State’s filing the original petitions, the 

State filed amended petitions on November 17, 2017. In the 

amended petitions, the State alleged that the children were at 

risk for harm because they lacked safe and sanitary housing 

and because Steven was currently incarcerated and unable to 

care for the children. Steven ultimately admitted that portion 

of the amended petition which alleged that the children were 

at risk for harm due to his continued incarceration. Jennette 

ultimately admitted that portion of the amended petition which 

alleged that the children were at risk for harm because she 

was not providing them with safe and sanitary living conditions. Given the parents’ admissions, the juvenile court found 

Steven Jr., Genevive, and Aodhan to be within the meaning of 

§ 43-247(3)(a).

A disposition hearing was held on January 9, 2018. We 

note that the record from this hearing reflects that Jennette 

was present at the hearing, but because she had been recently 

arrested and jailed, she appeared at the hearing “in custody.” 

Jennette had apparently been charged with child abuse; however, the exact circumstances surrounding this charge are not 

discussed in our record. Steven was also present at the hearing, 

because he was no longer incarcerated.

At the hearing, the juvenile court ordered that Steven and 

Jennette comply with the case plan recommended by the 

Department. That case plan included directives for both Steven 

and Jennette to participate in a psychological evaluation and 

a parenting assessment; to take steps to maintain a clean and 

safe home environment, including working with a family support worker; and to attend supervised parenting time with the 

children and demonstrate age-appropriate supervision for each 

child. The Department indicated that prior to the hearing, both 

Steven and Jennette had participated in a psychological evaluation and a parenting assessment. The parties noted that they 

were awaiting the results of that testing.
- 836 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

A review hearing was held in April 2018. At this hearing, 

Steven and Jennette were ordered to “follow the recommendations of the comprehensive parental capacity evaluations.” 

These recommendations included participating with individual 

and family counseling and medication management. A subsequent review hearing was held in July 2018. At this hearing, 

the juvenile court changed the permanency goal from reunification to adoption with a concurrent goal of reunification. 

Steven and Jennette were again ordered to comply with the 

Department’s case plan.

On July 20, 2018, the State filed motions to terminate 

Steven’s and Jennette’s parental rights. In the motions, the 

State alleged that termination was appropriate pursuant to Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 43-292(2), (6), and (9) (Reissue 2016). The State 

also alleged that termination of Steven’s and Jennette’s parental 

rights was in the best interests of the children.

2. Termination Hearing Evidence

A hearing on the termination motions was held on September 

27, 2018. At the hearing, the State called six witnesses to testify, 

including two Department caseworkers who had been assigned 

to the family’s case, the clinical psychologist who conducted a 

psychological evaluation and a parenting assessment for both 

Steven and Jennette, Genevive and Aodhan’s therapist, and 

Genevive and Aodhan’s foster mother. The State’s witnesses 

largely testified regarding Steven’s and Jennette’s failure to 

make any progress toward becoming appropriate parents for 

the children. Neither Steven nor Jennette fully took advantage 

of the rehabilitative services they were offered and ordered to 

complete. The witnesses also testified regarding the children’s 

severe behavioral problems and the progress the children have 

made while living apart from their parents in foster care. In 

addition to the State’s witnesses, Jennette called three witnesses to testify on her behalf. Each of these witnesses indicated that Jennette appeared to be an involved mother who had 

a bond with her children.
- 837 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

(a) Evidence Regarding Steven

As we mentioned above, in October 2017, when the current proceedings were initiated, Steven was in jail. Evidence 

in our record indicates that his incarceration was the result 

of being convicted of writing bad checks. When Steven was 

released, he lived with Jennette. However, at the July 2018 

review hearing, both Steven and Jennette testified that they 

were no longer living together. Jennette indicated that she told 

Steven to leave her home because he was not working and 

she no longer wanted to support him. Steven indicated that 

he was homeless and was sleeping in a tent which he pitched 

in various locations, including, on occasion, Jennette’s backyard. Despite not having adequate housing for himself or for 

his children, Steven expressed that his primary desire was to 

obtain a vehicle.

Steven was unemployed from the time of his release from 

jail through at least July 2018 when he obtained part-time 

employment. At the review hearing held in July, Steven testified that although he had applied for various jobs, he struggled 

with finding employment that would accommodate his scheduled visitation with the children. We note that by this time in 

the proceedings, Steven had visitation with the children only on 

weekends. The Department assisted both Steven and Jennette 

financially with such expenses as utilities, gas, and their telephones, but even with this assistance, they were unable to meet 

their own basic needs.

During the pendency of the juvenile court proceedings, 

Steven failed to consistently participate with family support 

services. He also failed to demonstrate his participation in 

individual therapy, despite his reports that he started attending 

therapy in July 2018. The only service that Steven consistently 

took advantage of was supervised visitation with the children. 

However, the Department had concerns about statements made 

by Steven to the children during the visitation sessions. In 

addition, because of Steven’s and Jennette’s living situations, 

the visits never took place in their home. The visits with 
- 838 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

Genevive and Aodhan took place at a visitation center, and the 

visits with Steven Jr. took place in a motel room, because he 

had been placed in a foster home in Omaha, Nebraska.

By the time of the termination hearing, Steven and Jennette 

saw their children every other weekend. They would have 

a visit with Genevive and Aodhan every other weekend and 

would have a visit with Steven Jr. on alternating weekends. 

Both of the Department caseworkers assigned to the case testified that during visits with the children, Steven and Jennette 

failed to follow through with disciplining the children, despite 

their behaviors, and as a result, struggled to control the children. They also spent a great deal of time looking at their 

telephones instead of interacting with the children and were 

sometimes not fully prepared with everything necessary to 

care for the children. Steven had to be repeatedly prompted 

to change Aodhan’s diapers prior to the time he became potty 

trained. When asked, Steven and Jennette both indicated their 

belief that visits with the children were going well.

The results of Steven’s psychological evaluation and parenting assessment further indicated the deficiencies in his 

parenting abilities. Dr. Gage Stermensky, the clinical psychologist who performed the evaluations on Steven, testified at the termination hearing that based upon the results 

of his evaluations, he believed that Steven currently lacked 

the ability to sufficiently care for his children. Stermensky 

testified that Steven suffered from bipolar disorder, antisocial 

personality disorder, and anxiety disorder. Antisocial personality disorder in particular can cause impulsivity and difficulty with being taught new skills or with being supervised. 

Furthermore, Stermensky said that Steven lacked insight into 

how his behaviors and actions impacted his children and that 

he lacked empathy for others and displayed an inability to 

meet his basic needs.

Stermensky opined that Steven would benefit from both 

behavioral therapy and medication compliance. Steven 

informed Stermensky that he was not currently taking any 
- 839 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

medication because he could not afford to pay for the prescriptions. Stermensky indicated that there are programs available which provide assistance with the cost of prescriptions 

for mental health issues. Stermensky testified that ultimately, 

Steven’s prognosis was “guarded” in that Stermensky had concerns about whether Steven would ever gain the capacity to be 

an appropriate parent. Such concerns included Steven’s lengthy 

history of involvement with the Department without any significant or maintained improvements. Stermensky noted that even 

with the Department’s help, Steven was still unable to meet his 

own basic needs. And, Stermensky questioned whether Steven 

would ever be able to meet his children’s needs. Stermensky 

testified that given Steven’s history, he would need to demonstrate improvement over a lengthy period of time, rather than 

just for a few months, prior to any change in his status with 

regard to the children.

There was evidence presented by the State’s witnesses regarding allegations that Steven either had sexually abused Genevive 

or was grooming her for such sexual abuse. Genevive’s foster 

mother, Susan M., testified that Genevive had disclosed multiple instances of sexual abuse, including reports of Steven’s 

touching her with his penis and Jennette’s taking pictures of 

her when she was not wearing any clothes. Susan also testified that Genevive displays sexualized behaviors, including 

masturbating “all the time.” Similarly, Genevive’s therapist, 

Mandy Price, testified at the termination hearing that Genevive 

had displayed sexualized behavior at school in addition to in 

her foster home. For example, Genevive wrote a letter to a 

high school football player expressing her desire to have a 

sexual relationship with him. Price testified that in her opinion, 

6-year-old Genevive was able to describe sexual intercourse 

at a level “probably above the normal developmental stage.” 

Genevive reported to Price, completely unprompted and “out 

of the blue,” that Steven had touched her on her bottom with 

his penis. When Genevive made this report, she asked Price 

not to tell anyone about this information and she said she did 
- 840 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

not want to disclose any further information about the incident. 

Price testified that she did not believe that Genevive’s disclosures were the result of anyone “coaching” her about what 

to say.

While both Steven and Jennette denied the allegations of 

sexual abuse during the current proceedings, Jennette had previously reported her own concerns about Steven’s relationship 

with Genevive. When Genevive was younger, Jennette took 

Genevive to the hospital with concerns that Steven was molesting her because he took too long to change her diapers. And, 

during a prior court proceeding, Jennette asked that Steven 

have only supervised visits with Genevive because of concerns 

that he was sexually abusing her. Moreover, as we noted above, 

Steven had previously been convicted of sexually abusing his 

young niece.

(b) Evidence Regarding Jennette

The children were initially removed from the family home 

due to its unsanitary and unsafe condition. Throughout the proceedings, Jennette had made some efforts to improve the home; 

however, by the time of the termination hearing, the condition 

of the home remained an issue. Jennette did pay to fix some 

of the subflooring in the home, to fix water damage present 

on the ceiling, and to build an enclosed porch. However, a 

“[v]ery potent” smell still existed in the home. The most recent 

Department caseworker, Abbie Wiebesiek, described the smell 

as consisting of “cat urine [and] old garbage.” In addition, in 

February and March 2018, there was no electricity in the home 

and it was very cold. Wiebesiek testified that she had not visited the home since June because Jennette was no longer being 

cooperative about allowing her to walk through the home. In 

fact, Jennette essentially cut off contact with the Department in 

June after she was informed that the State was seeking termination of her parental rights.

Additionally, there was evidence that Jennette had a boyfriend 

who appeared to be living at her home. Jennette acknowledged 
- 841 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

that Steven Jr. did not like her boyfriend. There was also 

evidence that the boyfriend was “aggressive” toward Steven 

Jr. and regularly used marijuana. Wiebesiek indicated that 

there was a “strange relationship dynamic” between Jennette, 

Steven, and Jennette’s boyfriend.

Jennette acquired full-time employment in March 2018. 

Around this same time, she worked with family support to 

establish a budget for her monthly income so that she could 

pay for improvements to the family’s home, help pay for travel 

to Omaha to visit Steven Jr., and save for the future. However, 

in July 2018, Jennette voluntarily terminated her employment, 

with no explanation. Jennette lied to the Department for the 

next 3 months about her employment status—she continued to 

report that she was employed, when she was not.

Jennette attended visitations with her children on a fairly 

consistent basis. However, as we discussed above, Jennette’s 

behavior during the visitations was not always appropriate. 

She and Steven struggled to control the children, failed to consistently discipline them, and spent a great deal of time looking at their telephones. In addition to this behavior, Jennette 

would often speak with the children about inappropriate topics, 

including her relationship with Steven and the problems they 

were having as a couple.

Stermensky, who also completed a psychological evaluation and parenting assessment on Jennette, testified that 

she currently lacked the ability to sufficiently care for her 

children. Stermensky indicated that Jennette suffered from 

schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. He explained that this 

disorder can cause disorganized thinking, a diminished ability to meet hygienic needs, manic and depressive episodes, 

and hallucinations. In addition, Jennette reported having poor 

coping skills and amplified psychosis and decompensation 

when she is experiencing a stressful situation. Stermensky 

indicated that Jennette did not recognize the full extent of her 

mental health symptoms or how those symptoms impacted the 

home environment.
- 842 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

Stermensky believed that medication compliance and therapy 

could mitigate Jennette’s symptoms significantly and improve 

her ability to effectively parent her children. However, during her evaluation, Jennette told Stermensky that she had not 

“liked” the medications so she had stopped taking them. As 

a result, Jennette had not had any treatment for her disorder in an extended period of time. Stermensky recommended 

that Jennette engage in a long-term treatment program and 

that her visitation with the children be limited to therapeutic interactions.

Ultimately, Stermensky had serious concerns about Jennette’s 

ability to gain the capacity needed to effectively parent her 

children. He noted that Jennette had been receiving assistance 

from the Department for quite some time, but had been unable 

to show any marked improvement in her parenting abilities. 

Stermensky stated, “The best predictor of, you know, future 

behavior is past behavior.” He also noted that he had concerns 

about Jennette’s relationship with her boyfriend and how that 

relationship may affect her ability to parent. Stermensky indicated that Jennette may allow individuals to be a part of her 

and her children’s lives, even when that would not be in the 

children’s best interests.

Evidence in the record indicated that after Jennette’s evaluations with Stermensky, she affirmatively stated that she was 

participating in individual counseling. However, she failed to 

ever provide proof of her attendance. In addition, there was no 

evidence to indicate that she was taking any medication for her 

mental health problems. The record also indicated that by the 

time of the termination hearing, Jennette was reporting that she 

was pregnant again.

Jennette called three of her own witnesses to testify at the 

termination hearing. Two of these witnesses were workers 

who had visited the family’s home to assist with the children’s education and behavioral issues, prior to the children’s 

removal in October 2017. Each of these witnesses testified 

that Jennette was very involved with the assistance programs 
- 843 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

and was cooperative with their efforts. The witnesses testified 

that all of the children appeared bonded with Jennette. Each 

of the witnesses also indicated that the family’s home had a 

strong smell and that keeping the home clean and sanitary was 

something that had to be addressed on more than one occasion. 

Jennette’s third witness was a visitation worker who observed 

Jennette with Genevive and Aodhan after their removal. This 

witness testified that Jennette had demonstrated positive parenting skills and that the two younger children appeared to be 

bonded to Jennette. The witness also indicated that he had seen 

an improvement in the visits over time—the visits were calmer 

and the children were listening better and fighting less.

(c) Evidence Regarding Children’s 

Behavioral Issues

The State presented evidence focused on the children’s 

behavioral issues and the improvements they have made while 

living in foster care. Steven Jr. has been diagnosed with SturgeWeber syndrome, which causes seizures, developmental delays, 

and lower cognitive functioning. When the children were initially removed from Steven and Jennette’s home in October 

2017, they were all placed in the same foster home with Susan. 

Susan testified at the termination hearing that when Steven Jr. 

first arrived at her home, he had “[a] lot” of specialized needs. 

He would have “fits” if he did not get his way. Although he 

was 12 years old, he would still have accidents by urinating 

on himself. In addition, he was violent toward Genevive and 

Aodhan, hitting, kicking, and pinching them. He also threatened to harm everyone in his foster home. Susan described 

Steven Jr. as functioning more at the level of a 5 or 6 year old 

than a 12 year old. He was unable to meet any of his basic 

needs. Almost immediately after being placed in Susan’s home, 

Steven Jr. needed to be hospitalized as a result of his seizures 

and the need to regulate his antiseizure medication.

After a month with Susan, Steven Jr. moved to a more 

specialized foster home in Omaha. Since his move, he had 
- 844 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

made some improvements in his behavior, but he continued 

to be “very easily frustrated” and to have accidents where he 

urinated or defecated on himself. These problems were particularly prevalent both during and after Steven Jr.’s visits with his 

parents. Steven Jr.’s foster mother in Omaha enrolled Steven 

Jr. in special education classes and was working with him on 

learning to read.

In addition to the sexualized behavior exhibited by Genevive, 

she was described as being bossy, controlling, and untruthful. 

While Genevive had made improvements in her behavior during her time in foster care, she struggled after visits with her 

parents. Genevive had nightmares for 3 or 4 days after every 

visit. During these nightmares, she would wake up screaming. 

Genevive described these nightmares to Price, indicating that 

in the dreams Jennette would appear as a “monster” or would 

be “shooting people.” Price testified that the consistency and 

regularity of the nightmares was concerning.

At the time of his removal in October 2017, Aodhan was 

4 years old, but was not yet potty trained and was unable to 

speak well. Susan testified that Aodhan’s behavior was “horrible.” He reacted physically when he was told “no,” including biting, hitting, kicking, and scratching. He called people 

derogatory names but, in other respects, he still acted younger 

than his age. Susan testified that Aodhan was also abusive to 

animals. She caught him attempting to drown one of the family’s puppies and a couple of their cats. Price, who also acted 

as Aodhan’s therapist for a few months, diagnosed him as suffering from an adjustment disorder.

In the time Aodhan had been in foster care, Susan testified 

that his behaviors had improved. She said he was calmer, was 

less physical when angry, and accepted discipline and redirection. In fact, Price testified that she decreased the frequency of 

Aodhan’s therapy visits. However, after visits with his parents, 

Aodhan would “fight[]” in his sleep and ask to sleep with his 

foster father for comfort. In addition, he would regress in his 
- 845 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

potty training, be more violent, use inappropriate language, and 

revert to acting younger than his age.

3. Juvenile Court’s Order

On December 14, 2018, the juvenile court entered an order 

terminating Steven’s and Jennette’s parental rights to Steven 

Jr., Genevive, and Aodhan. The court found that the State had 

proved that termination of Steven’s and Jennette’s parental 

rights was warranted pursuant to § 43-292(2) and (6) and that 

termination was in the children’s best interests. In the order, the 

court found:

[I]n these cases, the system has run out of reasonable 

options and the prospects are dim that additional time 

will be of any benefit. Both parents have shown they are 

unwilling or incapable of rehabilitating themselves in the 

foreseeable future to properly parent these children. The 

system cannot and should not allow children to languish 

in foster care waiting to see if a parent will mature.

The court also specifically found “clear and convincing evidence exists that the parental circumstances and conditions at 

issue in these cases are long-standing and have existed over 

the course of many years.” Additionally, while the court noted 

that the parents’ efforts to consistently participate in supervised 

visitations with their children during the pendency of the proceedings was “commendable,” the court ultimately found that 

“being a parent requires more than attending every other weekend visitations and necessitates acquiring the wherewithal to 

be a consistent, positive presence for a child’s everyday basic 

needs, something far different than the parenting described in 

these cases.”

Steven appeals, and Jennette cross-appeals, from the juvenile court’s order.

III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

On appeal, Steven alleges that the juvenile court erred in 

finding that there was sufficient evidence to prove (1) the 
- 846 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

relevant statutory grounds for termination of his parental rights 

and (2) that termination of his parental rights was in the children’s best interests.

On cross-appeal, Jennette also alleges that the juvenile court 

erred in finding that there was sufficient evidence to prove (1) 

the relevant statutory grounds for termination of her parental 

rights and (2) that termination of her parental rights was in the 

children’s best interests.

IV. 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 Ryder J., 283 Neb. 

318, 809 N.W.2d 255 (2012). 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. Id.

V. ANALYSIS

1. Steven’s Appeal

(a) Statutory Factors

[2] The bases for termination of parental rights in Nebraska 

are codified in § 43-292. Section 43-292 provides 11 separate 

conditions, any one of which 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. In re 

Interest of Sir Messiah T. et al., 279 Neb. 900, 782 N.W.2d 

320 (2010).

In its order terminating Steven’s parental rights to Steven 

Jr., Genevive, and Aodhan, the juvenile court found that the 

State had presented clear and convincing evidence to satisfy 

§ 43-292(2) and (6). The relevant portions of § 43-292 provide 

as follows:

The court may terminate all parental rights . . . when 

the court finds such action to be in the best interests of 
- 847 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

the juvenile and it appears by the evidence that one or 

more of the following conditions exist:

. . . .

(2) The parents have substantially and continuously or 

repeatedly neglected and refused to give the juvenile or a 

sibling of the juvenile necessary parental care and protection; [and]

. . . .

(6) Following a determination that the juvenile is one 

as described in subdivision (3)(a) of section 43-247, 

reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify the family if 

required under section 43-283.01, under the direction of 

the court, have failed to correct the conditions leading to 

the determination.

[3] In his brief on appeal, Steven asserts that the juvenile 

court erred in finding that termination of his parental rights 

was warranted pursuant to § 43-292(2) or (6). Contrary to 

Steven’s assertions, upon our de novo review of the record, we 

find that the State presented clear and convincing evidence to 

prove that termination of Steven’s parental rights to his three 

children was warranted pursuant to § 43-292(2). The evidence 

presented at the termination hearing revealed that Steven had 

failed to provide his children with necessary parental care and 

protection for a significant period of time. Additionally, Steven 

had failed to put himself in a position to achieve reunification after his children were removed from his care. A parent’s 

failure to provide an environment to which his or her children 

can return can establish substantial, continual, and repeated 

neglect. See In re Interest of Joseph S. et al., 291 Neb. 953, 

870 N.W.2d 141 (2015).

Steven’s children, Steven Jr., Genevive, and Aodhan, 

were placed in the custody of the Department and outside of 

Steven’s home for approximately 10 months prior to the time 

the State filed its motion to terminate Steven’s parental rights 

in July 2018. During that 10 months, Steven failed to obtain 

appropriate housing. While he initially resided in the family 
- 848 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

home with Jennette, by the time of the termination hearing, 

he was homeless. He lived in a tent and traveled from backyard to backyard. Despite his tenuous living situation, Steven 

remained unemployed through July 2018, when the motion 

to terminate his parental rights was filed. And, although he 

had obtained some employment, it was only part-time work. 

Steven had expressed to the Department caseworkers that his 

primary goal was to obtain a vehicle, not a house. According to 

the Department caseworkers who worked with Steven, he had 

demonstrated that he was incapable of providing for even his 

own basic needs. As such, it was clear that he was not capable 

of providing for the extensive needs of his children, who, 

because of their behavioral issues, need a great deal of routine 

and structure.

Also during the 10 months prior to the filing of the motion 

to terminate his parental rights, Steven failed to participate 

in individual therapy and failed to demonstrate compliance 

with necessary medication management for his mental health 

issues. Stermensky opined that without such intervention, 

Steven would remain incapable of being an appropriate parent 

to his children. Steven also did not take full advantage of the 

family support worker available to assist him in meeting his 

basic needs.

Even when Steven was physically present with the children 

during visitations, he often neglected their needs. Evidence presented at the termination hearing revealed that Steven needed 

to be prompted to change Aodhan’s diapers. He also failed to 

bring necessary supplies to visitations and spent a great deal 

of time looking at his telephone, rather than engaging with 

his children.

In our review of the record, we find sufficient evidence to 

demonstrate that, notwithstanding Steven’s release from jail, 

his circumstances have remained virtually unchanged from the 

time of the children’s removal in October 2017 to the time the 

State filed its motion to terminate his rights in July 2018. In 

fact, in some respects, Steven’s circumstances have declined 
- 849 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

since October 2017. He had made virtually no progress toward 

becoming an adequate parent for his children, despite the 

efforts of the Department and the juvenile court. Moreover, 

we note that Steven had a lengthy history of involvement 

with the Department and the juvenile court, but he had not 

yet demonstrated an ability to maintain any sort of long-term 

progress toward becoming an adequate parent even with years 

of assistance. Steven had not demonstrated that he could provide the children with the stability that they so desperately 

need. Steven had simply failed to provide an environment 

to which his children could return, and he had substantially, 

continuously, and repeatedly neglected Steven Jr., Genevive, 

and Aodhan.

Upon our de novo review of the record, we agree with the 

juvenile court’s finding that the State presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Steven had substantially and continuously or repeatedly neglected and refused to give Steven Jr., 

Genevive, and Aodhan necessary parental care and protection 

pursuant to § 43-292(2). We find that the juvenile court did not 

err in finding that termination of Steven’s parental rights was 

warranted pursuant to § 43-292(2).

[4] 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 Justin H. et al., 18 Neb. App. 718, 

791 N.W.2d 765 (2010). Therefore, this court need not review 

termination under § 43-292(6).

Once a statutory basis for termination has been proved, the 

next inquiry is whether termination of parental rights is in the 

children’s best interests.

(b) Best Interests

[5-7] Under § 43-292, once the State shows that statutory 

grounds for termination of parental rights exist, the State 
- 850 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

must then show that termination is in the best interests of the 

child. In re Interest of Ryder J., 283 Neb. 318, 809 N.W.2d 

255 (2012). A child’s best interests are presumed to be served 

by having a relationship with his or her parent. In re Interest 

of Isabel P. et al., 293 Neb. 62, 875 N.W.2d 848 (2016). This 

presumption is overcome only when the State has proved that 

the parent is unfit. Id. 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. 

Id. The best interests analysis and the parental fitness analysis 

are fact-intensive inquiries. Id. And while both are separate 

inquiries, each examines essentially the same underlying facts 

as the other. Id.

In his brief on appeal, Steven argues that the State failed 

to present sufficient evidence to prove that termination of his 

parental rights was in the children’s best interests. He asserts 

that the evidence presented at the termination hearing revealed 

that he had a “strong bond” with his children and that his 

relationship with them was “beneficial.” Brief for appellant at 

19. Upon our de novo review of the record, we cannot agree 

with Steven’s characterization of the evidence presented at the 

termination hearing. While there was limited evidence which 

suggested that the children enjoyed visits with Steven, the 

overwhelming evidence demonstrated that Steven’s relationship with the children was harmful to them, and certainly 

not beneficial.

As we discussed more thoroughly above, each of the children have rather significant behavioral issues. During the 

pendency of these proceedings while the children resided 

in foster care, many of the children’s behaviors improved 

or disappeared. However, whenever the children had visits 

with their parents, the children regressed and their behaviors 
- 851 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

worsened. Steven Jr. would urinate or defecate on himself 

either during or immediately after his visits with his parents. 

Genevive would have nightmares for 3 or 4 days after each 

visit. Similarly, Aodhan would struggle to sleep after visits. 

He would “fight[]” in his sleep and ask to sleep with his foster 

father for comfort. In addition, Aodhan would act out more 

after visits, including acting younger than his age and using 

inappropriate language. The children’s negative reactions to 

visits coupled with the recommendations of the professionals involved with this case resulted in Steven’s visitation with 

the children never transitioning from fully supervised visits. 

Moreover, by the end of the proceedings, Steven was still only 

seeing his children every other weekend. We agree with the 

juvenile court’s statement that being a parent requires more 

than attending brief visitations with the children every other 

weekend. Such limited time with the children does little to 

demonstrate either Steven’s parenting abilities or the strength 

of his bond with his children.

Throughout the proceedings, Steven demonstrated an unwillingness or an inability to take steps toward improving his housing situation, his financial circumstances, or his mental health. 

As a result of Steven’s failure to make any progress on these 

goals, he was no closer to achieving reunification with his 

children than he was at the start of the proceedings in October 

2017. At the termination hearing, Wiebesiek testified that termination of Steven’s parental rights was in the children’s best 

interests for multiple reasons:

For lack of case plan progress and continued concerns 

with sexual abuse. [Steven has] had two other children 

removed from the home that have been adopted. There’s 

been prior investigations throughout every child’s life, 

including one that wasn’t [Steven’s] own child. There 

ha[s] been a criminal charge of the sexual abuse for 

another child.

. . . .
- 852 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

[There has been no] [f]inancial and housing stability and [Steven is unable] to meet [Steven Jr.’s] needs 

especially.

Wiebesiek also testified that Steven had not demonstrated any 

consistent progress or stability.

Based upon our review of the record, we agree with 

Wiebesiek’s testimony that termination of Steven’s parental 

rights was in all three children’s best interests. The children 

should no longer have to wait for Steven to put them ahead 

of his own needs and wants. They should no longer have to 

wait for Steven to decide to make improvements to his current 

situation. The evidence presented revealed that Steven was 

not a fit parent for his children and that he was not capable 

of becoming a fit parent any time in the near future. The children need, and deserve, permanency. As such, we affirm the 

decision of the juvenile court which found that termination of 

Steven’s parental rights was in Steven Jr.’s, Genevive’s, and 

Aodhan’s best interests.

2. Jennette’s Cross-Appeal

At the outset, we note that Jennette failed to comply with 

the rules regarding cross-appeals. See Neb. Ct. R. App. P. 

§ 2-109(D)(4) (rev. 2014). Steven was the first party to file a 

notice of appeal, and therefore, he was the appellant. However, 

pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-101(C) (rev. 2015), once 

a notice of appeal is filed, all other parties become appellees 

and can file a cross-appeal. Here, Jennette properly designated 

herself as an appellee and as a cross-appellant when she filed a 

“BRIEF OF APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT.”

[8] As a cross-appellant, Jennette was required to comply 

with the rules on cross-appeals, including the requirement 

that she designate on the cover of her brief that it is a crossappeal, and set forth her cross-appeal in a separate division of 

the brief entitled “Brief on Cross-Appeal.” See § 2-109(D)(4). 

On her brief’s cover, Jennette does not specifically indicate 

that the brief contains a cross-appeal; however, she does title 
- 853 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

her brief as “BRIEF OF APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT, 

JENNETTE S[.]” Other than the cover, Jennette prepared her 

brief as though she was an appellant, and while it does not 

conform to § 2-109(D)(4) (“shall be set forth in a separate 

division of the brief” entitled “Brief on Cross-Appeal”), it is 

prepared consistent with § 2-109(D)(1) (requirements for brief 

of appellant). Given Jennette’s failure to fully comply with 

§ 2-109(D)(4), we must determine whether her brief sufficiently complies with our appellate court rules in order for this 

court to consider her assigned errors or, alternatively, whether 

we should limit our examination of the record for plain error 

only or provide no review at all. See, e.g., In re Interest of 

Justine J. & Sylissa J., 288 Neb. 607, 849 N.W.2d 509 (2014) 

(holding that where brief of party fails to comply with mandate 

of § 2-109(D), appellate court may proceed as though party 

failed to file brief or, alternatively, may examine proceedings 

for plain error). We conclude that Jennette’s brief has complied 

with the rules for an appellant’s brief which seeks affirmative relief, and the cover of her brief states she is a “CROSS 

APPELLANT,” thus notifying this court from the outset that 

she is seeking affirmative relief. Her notification that affirmative relief is being sought is critical to our decision, as we 

discuss next.

Recently, in In re Interest of Becka P. et al., ante p. 489, 

933 N.W.2d 873 (2019), this court considered the arguments 

of an appellee and cross-appellant, despite the lack of full 

compliance with § 2-109(D)(4). In In re Interest of Becka P. 

et al., the juvenile court terminated the parental rights of both 

parents. The father filed the only notice of appeal and was thus 

the appellant. This court noted that all other parties became 

appellees and could file a cross-appeal. The mother filed a 

“‘Brief of Appellee on Cross Appeal,’” but otherwise, prepared her brief in the form of an appellant’s brief and did not 

separately respond to the father’s appellant’s brief other than 

to accept his statement of the basis of jurisdiction and statement of the case. In re Interest of Becka P. et al., ante at 511, 
- 854 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

933 N.W.2d at 889. This court stated: “Although [the mother’s] brief violates the portion of the rule requiring a separate 

section for a cross-appeal, because the form and presentation 

of her assignments of error conform with the rules applicable 

to an appellant’s brief, we may consider the arguments raised 

in her brief.” Id. at 513, 933 N.W.2d at 890. In support, this 

court cited to Knaub v. Knaub, 245 Neb. 172, 512 N.W.2d 

124 (1994) (appellee designated himself on cover of brief as 

appellant rather than as appellee/cross-appellant), and In re 

Application A-16642, 236 Neb. 671, 463 N.W.2d 591 (1990) 

(appellees designated themselves on cover of briefs as appellants rather than as appellees and cross-appellants).

In Knaub v. Knaub, supra, an ex-husband sought to modify 

child support and alimony; the district court dismissed his 

action and assessed attorney fees against the ex-husband and 

his attorney based on the action being frivolous. The attorney 

filed the first notice of appeal in his own behalf (challenging sanctions), followed by the ex-husband filing a notice 

of appeal. The Nebraska Supreme Court pointed out that 

the attorney became the appellant and that the ex-husband 

was thus an appellee. The Supreme Court observed that the 

ex-husband

failed to designate his brief as a cross-appeal and failed 

to set forth a separate section within his brief titled 

“Brief on Cross-Appeal.” Although this violates our rule 

regarding the presentation of a cross-appeal, the form 

and presentation of [the ex-husband’s] assignments of 

error conform with the rules applicable to an appellant’s brief.

Id. at 175-76, 512 N.W.2d at 127. The Supreme Court proceeded 

to consider the ex-husband’s arguments raised in his brief.

In In re Interest of Becka P. et al., supra, this court also distinguished In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra H., 258 Neb. 

131, 602 N.W.2d 439 (1999), and In re Interest of Chloe P., 21 

Neb. App. 456, 840 N.W.2d 549 (2013); both cases involved 

juvenile court proceedings from which each parent appealed 
- 855 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

from a final order. In In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra H., 

258 Neb. at 144, 602 N.W.2d at 450, the father was the second 

parent to file a notice of appeal; he titled his brief as “‘Brief of 

Appellee.’” The Supreme Court noted that the father was “not 

merely resisting the claims of the appellant,” but was “seeking 

affirmative relief.” In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra H., 

258 Neb. at 144, 602 N.W.2d at 450. The Supreme Court cited 

to several cases for the proposition that a cross-appeal must 

be properly designated if affirmative relief is to be obtained, 

but also cited to Knaub v. Knaub, supra, and In re Application 

A-16642, supra, as cases where it had considered assigned 

errors even though the appellee or cross-appellant had “mistakenly” designated themselves as appellants. In re Interest 

of Natasha H. & Sierra H., 258 Neb. at 145, 602 N.W.2d at 

450. The Supreme Court stated that the factor distinguishing Knaub v. Knaub, supra, and In re Application A-16642, 

supra, from the case before it was that in those two cases “a 

party who was an appellee and should have cross-appealed 

mistakenly designated itself as an appellant, rather than as a 

cross-appellant,” whereas in the case before it, “the party that 

should have cross-appealed designated itself as an appellee, 

yet still sought affirmative relief.” In re Interest of Natasha H. 

& Sierra H., 258 Neb. at 146, 602 N.W.2d at 451. The court 

went on to state:

In short, the appellate courts of this state have always 

refused to consider a prayer for affirmative relief where 

such a claim is raised in a brief designated as that of an 

appellee. We have, in the past, decided to entertain a procedurally defective cross-appeal only where such crossappeal has been mistakenly asserted as an appellant’s 

brief. Even this is a matter left solely to the discretion of 

the courts and does not imply a willingness to consider 

such defective appeals in the future.

Parties wishing to secure appellate review of their 

claims for relief must be aware of, and abide by, the rules 

of this court and the Court of Appeals in presenting such 
- 856 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

claims. Any party who fails to properly identify and present its claim does so at its peril. See State v. Woods, 255 

Neb. 755, 587 N.W.2d 122 (1998). [The father] has not 

complied with the rules of this court in the instant case, 

and we decline to waive those rules on his behalf.

In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra H., 258 Neb. at 146-47, 

602 N.W.2d at 451 (emphasis supplied).

In In re Interest of Chloe P., 21 Neb. App. at 470, 840 

N.W.2d at 560, the father was the second to file a notice of 

appeal and he titled his brief as “‘Brief of Appellee.’” Although 

the father assigned errors and sought affirmative relief, he did 

not designate a cross-appeal on the cover of his brief, nor did 

he set forth a separate division of the brief designated as a 

cross-appeal. Relying on In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra 

H., supra, this court declined to waive the rules and address 

the father’s assigned errors (noting, however, that the father’s 

assigned error challenging the juvenile court’s adjudication 

order was addressed in the section responding to the mother’s 

assigned error on the same issue).

The key distinction in the above-cited cases is whether the 

cover and content of the brief puts an appellate court on notice 

that a party is seeking affirmative relief, whether identifying as an appellant or a cross-appellant. Designation only as 

an appellee does not provide such notification. Further, if an 

appellee and cross-appellant’s position aligns with the appellant’s position, as is often the case in juvenile court adjudications and parental termination cases, there is usually no reason 

to separately respond as an appellee. Thus, if the cover of a 

brief is sufficiently labeled to put the appellate court on notice 

that affirmative relief is being sought, the absence of a separately divided section in the brief designated “Brief on CrossAppeal” may not necessarily preclude full review so long as 

there is compliance with the rules pertinent to the content of an 

appellant’s brief. See § 2-109(D). However, if an appellee and 

cross-appellant does respond to an appellant’s assigned errors, 

a separately divided section titled “Brief on Cross-Appeal” 
- 857 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

would be necessary. We caution, however, that while an appellate court may decide to waive strict adherence to the briefing 

rules under such circumstances, it is not required to do so. As 

indicated earlier, a party who fails to comply with the appellate court rules does so at his or her peril. See In re Interest 

of Natasha H. & Sierra H., 258 Neb. 131, 602 N.W.2d 439 

(1999). Depending on the particulars of each case, failure to 

comply with the mandate of § 2-109(D) may result in an appellate court proceeding as though the party failed to file a brief 

or, alternatively, proceeding on a plain error review only. See In 

re Interest of Justine J. & Sylissa J., 288 Neb. 607, 849 N.W.2d 

509 (2014).

[9] In the present matter, Jennette, like the mother in In re 

Interest of Becka P. et al., ante p. 489, 933 N.W.2d 873 (2019), 

noted her desire to cross-appeal from the juvenile court’s 

decision by her designation as “CROSS APPELLANT” on 

the cover of her brief. Jennette also properly assigned errors 

and raised her arguments on appeal in a manner consistent 

with the requirements for an appellant’s brief as provided in 

§ 2-109(D)(1). As in In re Interest of Becka P. et al., Jennette 

did not include a separately divided section titled “Brief on 

Cross-Appeal” because she did not respond to the arguments 

raised by the appellant as would typically be seen in an appellee’s brief. Accordingly, we conclude Jennette sufficiently put 

this court on notice that she was seeking affirmative relief by 

designating herself as a cross-appellant on the cover of her 

brief and preparing it in compliance with § 2-109(D)(1); we 

therefore waive the requirement that the cross-appeal be set 

forth in a separate section of the brief when no appellee’s brief 

responding to the appellant’s arguments is filed. An appellate 

court may consider a party’s cross-appeal, even though the 

party’s brief violated § 2-109(D)(4) requiring a separate section for a cross-appeal, where the form and presentation of 

the assignments of error in the party’s brief conformed with 

§ 2-109(D)(1), which applies to an appellant’s brief.

We now consider the errors assigned in Jennette’s brief.
- 858 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

(a) Statutory Factors

Jennette asserts that the juvenile court erred in finding that 

termination of her parental rights was warranted pursuant to 

§ 43-292(2) or (6). Contrary to Jennette’s assertions, upon our 

de novo review of the record, we find that the State presented 

clear and convincing evidence to prove that termination of 

Jennette’s parental rights to her three children was warranted 

pursuant to § 43-292(2). As in our analysis of Steven’s challenge to the statutory factors to support termination of his 

parental rights, we find that the evidence presented at the hearing revealed that Jennette had failed to provide her children 

with necessary parental care and protection for a significant 

period of time. She had also failed to put herself in a position 

to achieve reunification after her children were removed from 

her care.

During the 10 months the children were placed outside of 

Jennette’s care, she failed to adequately renovate her home. 

By the time of the termination hearing, the home remained 

unsafe, unsanitary, and inappropriate for the children. There 

was evidence that Jennette had made efforts to fix the problems with the home, and at one point, she was even setting 

aside money in her budget to make renovations. However, 

Jennette’s efforts in this regard seemed to taper off during the 

summer of 2018, when Jennette voluntarily terminated her 

employment for an unknown reason. Without a steady stream 

of income, it was unclear how Jennette planned to maintain 

and renovate the home so that it could be made appropriate 

for the children.

Additionally, there was evidence presented at the hearing 

that Jennette’s boyfriend was either living with her at her 

home or was present at the home often. There was also evidence that the children did not like Jennette’s boyfriend and 

that the boyfriend had been “aggressive” toward Steven Jr. 

Jennette’s choice to continue to have her boyfriend in her life 

and in her home despite the objections of both her children 

and the Department was concerning, especially in light of 
- 859 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

Stermensky’s belief that Jennette may allow individuals to be a 

part of her and her children’s lives, even when that would not 

be in the children’s best interests.

Also during the 10 months prior to the filing of the motion 

to terminate her parental rights, Jennette failed to demonstrate 

compliance with any sort of mental health treatment plan. She 

indicated to Stermensky that she was unwilling to take necessary medications. She also failed to prove that she was attending individual therapy. Stermensky indicated that medication 

compliance and therapy could improve Jennette’s ability to 

effectively parent her children. Her failure to take advantage 

of the treatment available to her demonstrated an unwillingness to make improvements in her own life for the sake of 

her children.

Perhaps because of her ongoing mental health problems, 

Jennette had demonstrated a long-term inability to care for 

her children’s basic needs, including their medical care. Both 

Steven Jr. and Aodhan suffered from significant physical 

ailments while in Jennette’s custody, and the Department 

became involved with the family multiple times as a result of 

Jennette’s failure to obtain necessary medical care and failure 

to keep the children clean and safe. Despite the years of assistance provided to Jennette by the Department, she failed to 

demonstrate any sustained improvement in either her parenting skills or her ability to maintain a sanitary and safe home 

environment. Moreover, evidence presented at the hearing 

revealed that Jennette had previously had her parental rights 

to two older children terminated as a result of her neglect of 

their needs.

During the pendency of the current court proceedings, 

Jennette attended visitation with the children on a regular 

basis. However, as was the case with Steven, Jennette did 

not always act appropriately during the visits. She routinely 

discussed inappropriate topics with the children. She was 

often unable to control the children’s behaviors and provided 

inconsistent discipline. She did not give the children her full 
- 860 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

attention, even during the limited opportunities she had to 

see them.

As the termination hearing approached, Jennette stopped 

cooperating with the Department and its attempts to assist her. 

Jennette lied to her caseworker about quitting her job. Jennette 

pretended to be employed for months after she left her job. 

Jennette also stopped letting the caseworker visit her home. 

In both January and February 2018, Jennette was jailed on 

charges of child abuse.

In our review of the record, we find sufficient evidence to 

demonstrate that Jennette made very little progress toward 

reunification with her children from the time of their removal 

in October 2017 to the time the State filed its motion to terminate her parental rights in July 2018. Jennette had demonstrated an inability to provide the children with safety and 

stability. She could not provide them with safe and appropriate 

housing. She was not employed. She had chosen to live with 

someone who did not have a positive relationship with the 

children. Moreover, despite the numerous services offered to 

Jennette by the Department, both during the current proceedings and over the last decade, Jennette had demonstrated an 

unwillingness to take the necessary steps to improve her parenting abilities.

Upon our de novo review of the record, we agree with the 

juvenile court’s finding that the State presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Jennette had substantially and continuously or repeatedly neglected and refused to give Steven 

Jr., Genevive, and Aodhan necessary parental care and protection pursuant to § 43-292(2). As such, we turn to our analysis 

of whether termination of Jennette’s parental rights was in the 

children’s best interests.

(b) Best Interests

In her brief on appeal, Jennette argues that the juvenile court 

erred in finding that termination of her parental rights was in 

the children’s best interests. She asserts that she has a strong 
- 861 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

bond with the children and that “she has made improvements 

in her parenting skills that can be used to provide for the needs 

of her children.” Brief for appellee on cross-appeal at 14. Upon 

our review, we affirm the decision of the juvenile court that 

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

best interests.

Jennette did present evidence which demonstrated that she 

made attempts to be involved in her children’s education and 

that the children appeared content with Jennette. However, 

the overwhelming evidence presented at the hearing revealed 

that Jennette’s continued relationship with the children was 

detrimental to their well-being. As we discussed in our analysis of Steven’s appeal, the children had significant behavioral 

issues when they were removed from Jennette’s care. During 

the children’s time in foster care, their behaviors improved 

somewhat. Despite this improvement, the children regressed 

dramatically after visits with their parents. Genevive, in particular, appeared to react very negatively to seeing Jennette. 

Genevive would have nightmares after visits. In these nightmares, Jennette would appear as a “monster” or would be 

“shooting people.” By the time of the termination hearing, 

Jennette was seeing her children for a brief period of time 

every other weekend. Such limited contact with the children 

and with such negative behaviors occurring after that contact 

was not indicative of a strong bond between Jennette and 

the children.

Despite Jennette’s contentions in her brief on appeal, the 

evidence presented at the hearing did not reveal that she had 

made progress toward becoming an appropriate and effective 

parent. Jennette did obtain employment during the court proceedings. However, by the time of the hearing, she had voluntarily terminated this employment. Jennette had made some 

improvements on her home, but not enough improvements to 

make it a safe or sanitary living environment. Jennette failed 

to follow the recommendations of Stermensky and did not 

address her mental health problems. She was jailed twice on 
- 862 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

charges of child abuse. She chose to continue a relationship 

with a man who did not get along with her children. Taken 

together, the evidence presented revealed that Jennette’s circumstances had remained virtually unchanged since the initiation of the court proceedings.

At the termination hearing, Wiebesiek testified that Jennette 

had made poor progress since the removal of her children. 

Wiebesiek explained that Jennette had made no improvements 

in parenting skills and failed to follow through with the tenets 

of the court-ordered case plan. Wiebesiek opined that termination of Jennette’s parental rights was in the children’s 

best interests.

Based upon our review of the evidence, we agree with 

Wiebesiek’s opinion that termination of Jennette’s parental 

rights was in all three children’s best interests. The children 

should no longer have to wait for Jennette to put them ahead 

of her own needs and wants. Jennette is currently not a fit 

parent, and given her lengthy history of involvement with the 

Department, it appears that she will not become a fit and capable parent any time in the near future. We affirm the decision 

of the juvenile court which found that termination of Jennette’s 

parental rights was in Steven Jr.’s Genevive’s, and Aodhan’s 

best interests.

VI. CONCLUSION

We conclude that the State proved statutory grounds for 

termination of Steven’s and Jennette’s parental rights to Steven 

Jr., Genevive, and Aodhan and proved that termination is in the 

children’s best interests. As such, we affirm the decision of the 

juvenile court.

Affirmed.

Arterburn, Judge, concurring.

I agree with the analysis in the court’s opinion as to Steven’s 

appeal. I also agree that the evidence presented at the termination hearing was sufficient to support the county court’s 
- 863 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

determination that Jennette’s parental rights should be terminated. However, I disagree with the manner in which the 

majority herein has reached its decision. I take this position 

based on my reading of the case law relating to the issue of 

compliance with Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(D)(4) (rev. 2014), 

case law that should, in my opinion, be reexamined.

The decision to terminate a mother’s or father’s parental 

rights is among the most serious and difficult decisions a court 

is called upon to make. Unfortunately, the appellate courts 

of this state have frequently been asked to weigh whether 

a person’s fundamental right to parent their child should be 

affected by procedurally deficient briefs filed on behalf of 

that parent. This scenario frequently occurs when the second 

parent to seek appellate review of a trial court’s decision to 

terminate parental rights fails to follow the requirements of 

§ 2-109(D)(4). In cases decided by this court in 2018, and thus 

far in 2019, there have been at least six occasions where the 

second parent to file a notice of appeal and/or brief did not 

follow the requirements of the rule.

Before proceeding, I must make mention of appellate counsel’s obligation to be conversant with the Nebraska Court 

Rules of Appellate Practice. Our Supreme Court has warned 

parties that those who fail to abide by these court rules do so 

at their own peril. Despite this warning, this issue continues to 

arise repeatedly in termination of parental rights cases.

Part of the confusion may lie in the fact that in most termination cases, the interests of the father and mother are not 

adverse. As a result, the second parent to appeal in essence 

has no response or argument with the appellant’s contentions, so there is no obvious need to write a responsive brief. 

That parent is more akin to an appellant than an appellee. 

Interestingly, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1913 (Reissue 2016) provides that the party asking for reversal, vacation, or modification of a final order is to be designated as appellant, and the 

adverse party is to be designated as appellee. In termination 

cases, the term “appellant” more correctly describes the second 
- 864 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

parent to either file their notice of appeal or their brief. That 

person is clearly seeking reversal of the trial court’s order, 

and typically, the only parties that are adverse to their interests are the State and/or the guardian ad litem. Even given 

this potential confusion, however, there is ample case law 

warning of the consequences of failing to follow the rules of 

appellate practice.

Section 2-109(D)(4) provides:

Where the brief of appellee presents a cross-appeal, it 

shall be noted on the cover of the brief and it shall be set 

forth in a separate division of the brief. This division shall 

be headed “Brief on Cross-Appeal” and shall be prepared 

in the same manner and under the same rules as the brief 

of appellant.

Our Supreme Court addressed this issue in In re Interest 

of Natasha H. & Sierra H., 258 Neb. 131, 602 N.W.2d 439 

(1999). In that case, the parental rights of both parents were 

terminated by the trial court. The father’s notice of appeal was 

filed after the mother’s notice of appeal. His brief was titled 

as “‘Brief of Appellee.’” In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra 

H., 258 Neb. at 144, 602 N.W.2d at 450. The court noted that 

the father was indeed an appellee as provided by § 25-1913. 

However, since the father was seeking affirmative relief, he 

was required to follow the dictates of the court rule. The court 

stated, “The appellate courts of this state have repeatedly indicated that a cross-appeal must be properly designated, pursuant to rule 9D(4) [now § 2-109(D)(4)], if affirmative relief 

is to be obtained.” In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra H., 

258 Neb. at 145, 602 N.W.2d at 450. Since no cross-appeal 

was properly designated, the court refused to consider the 

father’s claim for relief. The court acknowledged that cases 

had arisen where the court did entertain procedurally defective 

cross-appeals where those cross-appeals had been mistakenly 

asserted as an appellant’s brief, but noted that this matter is 

left solely to the discretion of the courts and “does not imply 

a willingness to consider such defective appeals in the future.” 
- 865 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

Id. at 147, 602 N.W.2d at 451. See, also, Knaub v. Knaub, 245 

Neb. 172, 512 N.W.2d 124 (1994); In re Application A-16642,

236 Neb. 671, 463 N.W.2d 591 (1990). The court concluded 

by stating: “Parties wishing to secure appellate review of their 

claims for relief must be aware of and abide by, the rules of 

this court and the Court of Appeals in presenting such claims.” 

In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra H., 258 Neb. at 147, 602 

N.W.2d at 451. The court then declined to waive the rules on 

the father’s behalf.

This court considered a similar case in In re Interest of 

Chloe P., 21 Neb. App. 456, 840 N.W.2d 549 (2013). In In re 

Interest of Chloe P., after the father filed his notice of appeal, 

the appellate clerk notified him that his notice would be treated 

as a second notice of appeal and referred him to Neb. Ct. R. 

App. P. § 2-101(C) (rev. 2015). The father correctly designated 

himself as an appellee, but failed to follow the instructions of 

§ 2-101(C) which direct an appellee to follow the requirements 

set forth in § 2-109(D)(4). In that case, we held:

Based upon our court rules, [the father], as an appellee, was required to identify his cross-appeal on the cover 

of his brief and in a separate section in compliance with 

§ 2-109(D)(4). As in In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra 

H., supra, we decline to waive the rules on his behalf and 

to award him affirmative relief.

In re Interest of Chloe P., 21 Neb. App. at 472, 840 N.W.2d 

at 561.

Most recently, this court addressed a case wherein the 

mother (who filed her brief after the father filed his notice 

of appeal) failed to comply with § 2-109(D)(4). In re Interest 

of Becka P. et al., ante p. 489, 933 N.W.2d 873 (2019). The 

mother properly designated herself as an appellee. On the 

cover of her brief, she wrote “‘Brief of Appellee on Cross 

Appeal.’” In re Interest of Becka P. et al., ante at 511, 933 

N.W.2d at 889. However, she did not set forth her cross-appeal 

in a separate section of the brief. Rather, her brief was written 

simply as if she was an appellant. The court distinguished the 
- 866 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

case from In re Interest of Chloe P., supra, and In re Interest 

of Natasha H. & Sierra H., 258 Neb. 131, 602 N.W.2d 439 

(1999), finding that even though there was not a separate 

section for the cross-appeal, as is required by § 2-109(D)(4), 

“because the form and presentation of her assignments of error 

conform with the rules applicable to an appellant’s brief, we 

may consider the arguments raised in her brief.” In re Interest 

of Becka P. et al., ante at 513, 933 N.W.2d at 890 (citing 

Knaub v. Knaub, supra, and In re Application A-16642, supra). 

Though this appears to be at least a partial waiver of the rule, 

the court did not utilize any language of waiver.

The majority opinion of the court in this case follows the 

precedent set in In re Interest of Becka P. et al., supra. Here, 

the cover of Jennette’s brief designates her as an appellee 

and a cross-appellant and designates the brief as “Brief of 

Appellee/Cross Appellant.” As such, this case is essentially on 

all fours with In re Interest of Becka P. et al., and according 

to that precedent, Jennette’s assignments of error should be 

addressed on the merits. While I agree that Jennette deserves 

to have a full analysis of her case on the merits, I believe that 

the precedent set in In re Interest of Becka P. et al. may run 

afoul of the holding in In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra 

H., and certainly departs from the holding in In re Interest 

of Chloe P., which requires compliance with all aspects of 

§ 2-109(D)(4).

The holding in In re Interest of Becka P. et al., supra, 

moves the line a bit farther toward easing compliance with our 

court rule without fully waiving the rule. Under In re Interest 

of Chloe P., 21 Neb. App. 456, 840 N.W.2d 549 (2013), we 

required that the cross-appeal be identified on the cover of the 

brief and that a separate section devoted to the cross-appeal as 

prescribed by the court rule be included. Under In re Interest 

of Becka P. et al., the requirement of a separate section is 

no longer needed so long as the form of the brief and presentation of assignments of error conform to the rules of an 

appellant’s brief under § 2-109(D)(1). The difficulty with this 
- 867 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

finding (aside from its potential conflict with the holding in In 

re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra H.) is that it simply trades 

one fine line for another.

As our case law stands now, if the second parent to file an 

appeal or brief were to designate himself or herself only as 

an appellee (or perhaps as an appellant), without designating 

the brief as a cross-appeal, we would find that that parent had 

run afoul of the rule and would not hear his or her case on 

the merits even if the brief otherwise fully complied with the 

rules applicable to an appellant’s brief. At best, we may give 

them plain error review. See, e.g., In re Interest of Justine J. 

& Sylissa J., 288 Neb. 607, 849 N.W.2d 509 (2014) (holding that where brief of party fails to comply with mandate 

of § 2-109(D), appellate court may proceed as though party 

failed to file brief or, alternatively, may examine proceedings 

for plain error); In re Interest of Samantha L. & Jasmine L., 

286 Neb. 778, 839 N.W.2d 265 (2013). However, if the second 

parent were to designate his or her brief as a cross-appeal on 

the cover, and present us with an otherwise identical brief, that 

parent would receive a full review. In other words, full review 

may depend on whether the word “cross” is found somewhere on the cover of the brief in conjunction with the words 

“appeal” or “appellant.”

This fine line raises the question of whether § 2-109(D)(4) 

should be strictly applied at all to termination of parental 

rights cases. Should the decision of whether a father’s or 

mother’s right to parent his or her child potentially turn on 

whether one simple word appears on the cover of a brief? 

In the present case, the ultimate result would not change. 

Whether we review Jennette’s claims on the merits, conduct 

a plain error analysis, or simply refuse to review the matter 

due to noncompliance with the rule, we would affirm the termination of Jennette’s parental rights. That will not be true of 

every case, however.

For this reason, I cannot join in the final section of the 

opinion of the court regarding Jennette’s cross-appeal. In my 
- 868 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 831

view, we have two paths that can be followed: (1) strictly follow prior case law and require full compliance with our court 

rule as was done in In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra H., 

258 Neb. 131, 602 N.W.2d 439 (1999), and as this court did 

in In re Interest of Chloe P., supra, or (2) simply exercise 

our discretion and waive the rule as is also authorized by In 

re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra H. Given the fundamental 

nature of a person’s right to parent their child, I favor the 

latter so long as the brief complies with the rules governing 

an appellant’s brief. I do not believe that gradually cutting 

back on the enforcement of § 2-109(D)(4) as prescribed by 

In re Interest of Becka P. et al., ante p. 489, 933 N.W.2d 873 

(2019), and followed herein, promotes clarity in the law or 

will result in a just result for all parents whose parental rights 

hang in the balance. In this case, Jennette’s brief does meet 

the requirements of an appellant’s brief under § 2-109(D)(1). 

She is seeking reversal of a final order. Her interests are not 

adverse to those of Steven. As defined by § 25-1913, she is 

an appellant. Considering these factors in conjunction with 

the fundamental right a person has to parent their children, I 

believe the better course would be to simply waive all of the 

requirements of § 2-109(D)(4) as the pertinent case law allows 

us to do.