- 98 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

In re Interest of Jessalina M., 

a child under 18 years of age.

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. 

Samantha M., appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed July 18, 2023. No. A-22-678.

1. Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on the record and reaches its conclusions independently of the findings made by the juvenile court below.

2. Juvenile Courts: Evidence: Appeal and Error. When the evidence is 

in conflict, an appellate court may consider and give weight to the fact 

that the juvenile court observed the witnesses and accepted one version 

of the facts over another.

3. Parental Rights: Proof. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292(7) (Reissue 2016) 

operates mechanically and, unlike the other subsections of the statute, 

does not require the State to adduce evidence of any specific fault on the 

part of a parent.

4. Parental Rights: Time. The filing of the petition, supplemental petition, or motion to terminate parental rights is the triggering event for 

the 22-month look-back period described in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292(7) 

(Reissue 2016).

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 presumption is overcome only when the State has proved that the 

parent is unfit.

7. Parental Rights: Statutes: Words and Phrases. Although the 

term “unfitness” is not expressly stated in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

07/25/2023 12:05 AM CDT
- 99 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

(Reissue 2016), it derives from the fault and neglect subsections of that 

statute and from an assessment of the child’s best interests.

8. Parental Rights. Where 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.

Appeal from the County Court for Cheyenne County: 

Russell W. Harford, Judge. Affirmed.

Gregory A. Rosen for appellant.

Amber Horn, Chief Deputy Cheyenne County Attorney, for 

appellee.

Audrey M. Long, guardian ad litem.

Riedmann, Bishop, and Arterburn, Judges.

Bishop, Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Samantha M. appeals the order of the county court for 

Cheyenne County, sitting as a juvenile court, terminating her 

parental rights to her daughter, Jessalina M. We affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

1. Procedural Background

Samantha is the mother of Jessalina, born in September 

2020. Jose M. is Jessalina’s father. Jose was part of the juvenile proceedings below, but he made significant progress on his 

case plan and was able to be reunified with Jessalina. Because 

Jose is not part of this appeal, he will only be discussed 

as necessary.

Jessalina was removed from Samantha’s care shortly after 

Jessalina’s birth due to concerns about the child’s well-being. 

Hospital staff had been concerned about Samantha’s behaviors, which included yelling and screaming at staff; her initial 

refusal to sign a treatment order for Jessalina; and Samantha’s 

history of mental health issues. Additionally, Samantha previously had her parental rights terminated to her son, Noah C., 
- 100 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

in August 2019, and that termination was affirmed on appeal. 

See In re Interest of Noah C., 306 Neb. 359, 945 N.W.2d 143 

(2020). Jose is not Noah’s father. Because Noah is not part of 

this appeal, he will only be discussed as necessary.

(a) Lincoln County Proceedings

On September 10, 2020, the State filed a petition in the 

county court for Lincoln County, sitting as a juvenile court, 

alleging that Jessalina was a child within the meaning of Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) (Reissue 2016) because she was in 

a situation dangerous to life or limb or injurious to her health 

or morals. That same day, the juvenile court entered an “Order 

of Detention” giving temporary custody of Jessalina to the 

Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 

Jessalina was placed in foster care, where she remained until 

on or about January 10, 2022, at which time she was placed 

with her father, who by that time had made significant progress 

on his case plan.

On September 14, 2020, the juvenile court appointed counsel to represent Samantha, and a guardian ad litem (GAL) for 

Jessalina. After a motion by the State noting Samantha’s history of mental health issues, the court also appointed a GAL 

for Samantha.

On October 13, 2020, Jessalina was adjudicated to be a child 

within the meaning of § 43-247(3)(a) based on her father’s 

answer of “no contest” to the allegations in the petition. 

Following a disposition hearing on November 24, the juvenile 

court adopted the DHHS case plan of November 17 and all 

parties were ordered to comply with the terms of that plan; the 

terms related to Jose and Jessalina, not Samantha.

On January 6, 2021, Samantha entered her “[n]o contest” 

answer to the allegations in the petition, and Jessalina was 

once again adjudicated to be a child within the meaning of 

§ 43-247(3)(a).

Following a disposition hearing on February 24, 2021, 

the juvenile court adopted the DHHS case plan of February 
- 101 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

17 and ordered all parties to comply with the terms of the 

respective plan. By a separate journal entry and order entered 

on March 8, the juvenile court ordered that a concurrent plan 

of adoption be redacted from the February 17 case plan.

The February 17, 2021, case plan set forth three goals and 

numerous strategies to achieve those goals. The first goal 

was for Samantha to “provide a safe and healthy environment for her child that promotes emotional and physical well 

being on a consistent ongoing basis.” The strategies set forth 

for Samantha were to work on her parenting skills to meet 

Jessalina’s needs on an ongoing basis; respond to Jessalina’s 

needs on cue and without prompt; learn to control her anger 

and not yell around Jessalina and demonstrate that on an 

ongoing basis, as well as learn to be open to family support 

giving her “attitude checks” and to be open to follow feedback regarding why an attitude check was called; work with 

service providers to understand Jessalina’s needs and how to 

meet them and demonstrate the ability to do that on an ongoing basis; attend visits as scheduled and not have them ended 

due to becoming upset, threatening others, or not meeting the 

needs of the child, and to communicate with family support 

if she was running late; cooperate in assessments requested 

regarding her mental health and/or parenting and sign releases 

to provide DHHS information regarding the assessments; and 

utilize appropriate coping skills gained in counseling when 

dealing with any stressors.

The second goal was for Samantha to “manage her anxieties, trauma, and mental health as evidenced by attending her 

medical appointments, managing her moods, handling stressful situations, communicating effectively, and participating 

in everyday activities.” The strategies set forth for Samantha 

were to sign releases for DHHS to “any and all doctors or 

service providers that she [was] working with regarding her 

mental health, medication management, and neurologist”; participate in a psychological evaluation and follow the recommendations; find and maintain employment to provide for 
- 102 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

herself and her daughter; maintain suitable housing for herself 

and her daughter; take her medications as prescribed and 

attend her medication management appointments; learn what 

her diagnosis is and how it affects her on a day-to-day basis, 

as well as how it affects her parenting; work with her service 

providers to learn how to manage her mental health to parent her child, meeting her emotional and physical well-being, 

and demonstrate that ability consistently for a minimum of 6 

months; and control her emotions and communicate rationally 

without yelling and becoming verbally aggressive.

The third goal was for Jessalina to “have a safe and stable 

home provided for her where her physical and emotional needs 

are consistently met.” The strategies set forth for Samantha 

were to attend visits with Jessalina and meet her physical and 

emotional needs during the visits, obtain employment to provide for Jessalina’s needs, and maintain suitable housing.

The goals and strategies from the February 2021 case plan 

remained the same throughout the entirety of this case.

On April 29, 2021, Samantha’s counsel filed a motion to 

withdraw, stating that “[Samantha] has expressed that she 

would like different representation, and there has been a break 

down in the attorney-client relationship.” At a hearing on May 

4, counsel stated that Samantha expressed a desire for different 

or more effective representation. Samantha’s GAL stated that 

Samantha was getting excellent counsel and that it would not 

be in Samantha’s best interests to allow counsel to withdraw. 

Following the hearing, the juvenile court denied counsel’s 

motion to withdraw, but it did appoint cocounsel to represent Samantha.

A review hearing was held on May 11, 2021. Samantha 

objected to DHHS’ May 4 court report and case plan, which 

once again included a concurrent plan for adoption. An evidentiary hearing was set for June 30.

On June 17, 2021, Jessalina’s GAL filed a motion to 

transfer the case to Cheyenne County pursuant to Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 43-282 (Reissue 2016). The GAL alleged that 
- 103 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

Samantha moved to North Platte, Nebraska (Lincoln County), 

from Sidney, Nebraska (Cheyenne County), shortly before 

Jessalina’s birth; Jessalina was born in North Platte in 

September 2020, and the juvenile petition was filed in Lincoln 

County on September 10; Jessalina’s foster parents (with 

whom she was placed the day she was released from the hospital after her birth) lived in Sidney; Jose had always lived in 

Sidney; Samantha and Jose had a divorce action pending in 

Cheyenne County; all visits by both parents occurred at locations outside of Lincoln County, with a majority occurring 

in Sidney; all witnesses who had been directly involved with 

Jessalina for any hearing occurring in this matter, with the 

exception of Samantha, were located in either Keith County 

or Cheyenne County; and Cheyenne County was the most 

convenient forum. The notice of hearing stated that the motion 

would be heard on June 22.

On June 18, 2021, Samantha filed a motion to continue 

the hearing on the GAL’s motion to transfer. Samantha stated 

in part that she was currently awaiting a contested hearing 

scheduled for June 30 concerning her objections to a case plan 

that was offered at a hearing on May 11. She claimed that she 

would be

unduly prejudiced by a decision to transfer this case at 

any time but she will be severely prejudiced by having 

the motion heard and potentially decided prior to her 

previously scheduled hearing on June 30, 2021[,] which 

could result in a continuance of that hearing and new 

counsel being appointed in the county the case is transferred to.

Following a hearing on June 22, 2021, the juvenile court, on 

its own motion, postponed the contested court report and case 

plan hearing scheduled for June 30, and stated that the contested motion to transfer would be heard that day instead.

At the June 30, 2021, hearing on the motion to transfer, 

the juvenile court stated that Jessalina’s GAL was excused 

from the hearing but was authorized to present evidence by 
- 104 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

affidavit. Exhibits were then received, and arguments were 

made. We will set forth the details as necessary later in our 

analysis. The juvenile court entered its order on July 2, transferring the matter to Cheyenne County; it also deferred the 

contested review hearing on the May 4 court report and case 

plan to Cheyenne County.

(b) Cheyenne County Proceedings

On August 13, 2021, the county court for Cheyenne County, 

sitting as a juvenile court, set Samantha’s objection to the May 

4 court report and case plan for hearing on September 21.

On September 7, 2021, Samantha’s court-appointed counsel 

in Cheyenne County filed a motion to withdraw, stating that 

she had been “fired” by Samantha, who felt counsel was ineffective and not representing her properly. The juvenile court 

granted the motion and appointed new counsel the same day.

Following the hearing on Samantha’s objection to the May 

4, 2021, DHHS court report and case plan, the juvenile court 

entered an order on September 27, modifying the May 4 report 

“to eliminate Adoption as an alternative to reunification at 

this time” and approving the court report and case plan “as 

modified.” The goals and strategies for Samantha otherwise 

remained the same.

On October 22, 2021, the juvenile court granted Samantha’s 

motion to hire an expert in psychology to assess whether 

her mental health needs rose to a level of disability that may 

require special accommodations; Dr. Gage Stermensky was to 

be the expert. On November 2, Jessalina’s GAL filed a motion 

to update Samantha’s psychological evaluation, noting that 

it had been a year since Samantha’s previous psychological 

evaluation. Following a hearing, the court granted the GAL’s 

motion and ordered Samantha to obtain an updated psychological evaluation by Dr. Stermensky, with the results to be 

provided to the parties, except the father and his attorney. 

Samantha was also ordered to sign all psychological and medical releases.
- 105 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

On November 30, 2021, the juvenile court approved the 

November 2 court report and case plan over Samantha’s 

objections. The goals and strategies for Samantha remained 

the same.

On January 14, 2022, the State and Jessalina’s GAL filed 

an emergency motion to suspend visitations with Samantha 

and Jessalina. The motion alleged as follows: Since the end 

of December 2021, Samantha refused to participate in visits. 

A safety threat existed for Jessalina and “FSWs” (family 

support workers) to provide coverage of Samantha’s visits 

because (1) at the last visit in December, law enforcement 

was summoned due to Samantha’s behavior, including her 

refusal to return Jessalina to the family support provider and 

physically restraining Jessalina when the visit was ended; 

(2) Samantha had a friend stalk a family support worker and 

then verbally threaten the present worker, including threats of 

physical harm; (3) the family support worker resigned from 

the case due to Samantha’s threats and behaviors; and (4) this 

was the fourth family support worker to terminate services 

with Samantha due to her behaviors. Following a hearing, 

the juvenile court entered an order on February 2, 2020, 

granting the motion to suspend visits and stating that no further in-person visitations would be provided until Samantha 

submitted to an evaluation by Dr. Stermensky and his report 

was filed with the court; pending the evaluation and receipt 

of the report, Samantha was to be provided video visitation 

with Jessalina.

On February 14, 2022, Samantha filed a motion to reconsider that, in part, sought a different psychologist to complete 

her updated psychological evaluation, because Dr. Stermensky 

had previously completed Jose’s evaluation “and this causes 

concern given the relationship between the two parties.” 

Following a hearing, the juvenile court granted Samantha’s 

request to have an updated psychological evaluation by a 

licensed psychologist other than Dr. Stermensky, because of 
- 106 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

the potential conflict of interest. The court said, “It makes the 

most sense to the Court that Dr. Kimzey . . . do the updated 

evaluation because he did the first psychological evaluation,” 

but that Samantha and her counsel could choose a psychologist 

from a specified list.

On March 25, 2022, the State and Jessalina’s GAL filed 

a “[c]omplaint” to terminate Samantha’s parental rights to 

Jessalina pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292(2), (3), (5), (6), 

and (7) (Reissue 2016). The motion alleged that Samantha 

substantially and continuously or repeatedly neglected and 

refused to give Jessalina necessary parental care and protection; Samantha, being financially able, willfully neglected to 

provide Jessalina with the necessary subsistence, education, 

or other care necessary for her health, morals, or welfare or 

neglected to pay for such subsistence, education, or other 

care when legal custody of Jessalina was lodged with others and such payment ordered by the court; Samantha was 

unable to discharge parental responsibilities because of mental illness or mental deficiency, and there were reasonable 

grounds to believe that such condition would continue for a 

prolonged indeterminate period; reasonable efforts to preserve 

and reunify the family failed to correct the conditions leading 

to the adjudication of the child under § 43-247(3)(a); Jessalina 

had been in an out-of-home placement for 15 or more months 

of the most recent 22 months; and termination of Samantha’s 

parental rights was in the best interests of the child.

2. Parental Termination Hearing

The parental termination hearing was held on July 20 and 

August 12 and 19, 2022. Samantha was allowed to appear virtually; she was always represented by counsel, who appeared 

personally, as did Samantha’s GAL. The State called several 

witnesses to testify, and numerous exhibits were received into 

evidence. Samantha did not testify, but two witnesses testified 

on her behalf.
- 107 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

(a) Prior Parental Termination

Sonya Oliverius, a DHHS child family services supervisor, testified that she was the one who removed Noah from 

Samantha’s care in December 2017 and then supervised that 

case for its entirety. Noah was 4 or 5 years old at the time 

of his removal. DHHS ultimately recommended terminating 

Samantha’s parental rights. Oliverius stated, “We had worked 

a case with [Samantha] for quite some time with case plan 

goals,” but “[w]e were not able to make enough progress 

with [her] in regards to mostly her mental health,” “[a]nd so 

we did not feel that she could provide a safe and emotionally 

stable environment for Noah.” DHHS never knew exactly what 

Samantha was diagnosed with, but she “sporadically talked 

about different things, PTSD being one of the biggest concerns 

that had been brought up.” Samantha would not sign releases 

for anything from the past and never completed requested 

psychological evaluations. She also did not complete a parenting capacity assessment. Samantha “questioned anyone and 

everyone that was, essentially, on her case,” and it got to the 

point where there was not a visitation provider who wanted to 

work with her.

During Noah’s case, his father (not Jose) reported to DHHS 

that he was concerned with continuing his involvement with 

Noah due to actions by Samantha, including concerns of false 

allegations of domestic violence, and that he almost lost his 

job because Samantha showed up at his work. Samantha and 

Noah’s father ultimately had their parental rights terminated in 

August 2019.

(b) September 2020 Removal of Jessalina

Jenna Odell is a child and family services specialist with 

DHHS in North Platte and does initial assessments. Odell 

testified that when Jessalina was born in September 2020, 

there were concerns about Samantha’s behavior at the hospital, as well as her mental health; the doctor who oversaw Samantha’s prenatal care and delivered Jessalina was 
- 108 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

concerned about Jessalina leaving the hospital with Samantha 

and thought Samantha needed a “psych eval.” Hospital progress notes indicate that Samantha was “yelling and screaming 

at staff as well as initially refusing to sign consent to treat the 

infant” (she later signed the consent), she was “easily frustrated,” and there was a lack of information on where an older 

sibling was located; thus, a report was made to the “abuse and 

neglect hotline.”

Odell met Samantha at the hospital on September 9 and 

10, 2020. Odell said Samantha was “dismissive like nothing’s 

wrong” and she accused nurses of “lying about stuff” on a 

few occasions. Samantha told Odell that she was not currently 

participating in counseling; she said she had done so with 

Noah, but it did not help. Samantha was taking medication 

as prescribed by her physician for her mental health, some of 

which had to be changed or withheld during pregnancy but 

resumed following Jessalina’s birth. Samantha talked about 

the domestic violence between Jose and her and stated that 

was the reason she had moved to North Platte. Samantha 

would not allow Odell to do a walk-through of her home or 

even give Odell her address because “she was very paranoid 

that somebody would get the address and give it to [Jose].” 

Additionally, Samantha would not give Odell the names of 

her friends who were her support persons so that Odell could 

speak with them. According to Odell, Samantha “scored high” 

on a risk assessment tool and it did not seem like she had 

addressed concerns since Noah’s case the year prior. Odell 

spoke to Jose over the phone on September 9 and 10, and 

he was concerned for Jessalina. He told Odell that there was 

a current protection order that Samantha had against him, 

but that he had never assaulted Samantha and that she was 

the aggressor.

Odell stated that Jessalina was made a state ward on 

September 10, 2020, and placed in a kinship foster home in 

Sidney where Noah lived. Odell did a referral for Samantha 

and Jose to have supervised visitation with Jessalina and 
- 109 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

provided Samantha with gas and hotel vouchers as well. 

Samantha’s referral was for 25 hours of supervised visitation 

with Family 4ward in Sidney. Odell transferred the case to a 

specialist in October.

(c) Caseworker October 2020 

Through August 2022

Catherine Ruiz is a DHHS child and family services specialist who was the caseworker on this case from October 

2020 through the parental termination hearings. She described 

Samantha’s inability to meet Noah’s needs, and when asked if 

Samantha’s mental health was an issue in Noah’s case, Ruiz 

responded, “Yes.” According to Ruiz, Jessalina was removed 

from parental care on September 10, 2020, and was placed 

with her father in January 2022; Jessalina has never been 

placed back with Samantha. Samantha’s visits with Jessalina 

were supervised for the entire case.

Ruiz testified that Samantha was court-ordered to undergo 

a psychological evaluation in this case. She completed an 

evaluation with “Dr. Kimzey, PhD.” in November 2020. The 

evaluation indicates that Samantha reported that the assessment 

was not court ordered. She was diagnosed with “Attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder, Combined presentation,” 

“Posttraumatic stress disorder,” and “Generalized anxiety disorder.” It was also noted that an alternative diagnosis was 

being considered, “Rule Out: Unspecified Bipolar Disorder.” 

Outpatient counseling was recommended, as well as a psychiatric medical consultation. Ruiz testified that the submitted 

exhibit contained only a portion of Dr. Kimzey’s report, as 

that was all that was provided to DHSS because “Samantha 

did not want us to know about her trauma” or “previous history.” Ruiz did not believe that any of the information related 

to the psychological evaluation was comprehensive enough to 

be valid, and she was concerned that all the information provided to Dr. Kimzey came solely from Samantha; Ruiz did not 

believe that Samantha was an accurate reporter. Later in the 
- 110 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

case, Samantha was ordered to obtain an updated evaluation, 

but, to Ruiz’ knowledge, Samantha had not done so by the 

time of the termination hearing.

The DHHS case plan goals and strategies, as set forth 

previously, were adopted by the juvenile court and remained 

the same throughout the entirety of the case. According to 

exhibits received into evidence, DHHS provided numerous 

services to Samantha, including family support with two different agencies, supervised visitation with three different 

agencies, makeup visitation, “Zoom” visits, home visits, case 

management, team meetings, medical consultations, urgent 

needs assessment, counseling, psychological evaluations, hotel 

vouchers, gas vouchers, and transportation. Ruiz stated that 

Samantha did not utilize all the services provided to her, and 

it inhibited her ability to achieve reunification. Samantha had 

attended parenting classes early in the case.

Ruiz said that DHHS also tried to help Samantha with time 

management, provided her with a watch, talked to her about 

using “apps” on her phone, switched visitation times to be 

later in the day, and extended how late she could be for a 

visit. DHHS accommodated Samantha’s dog, which she said 

would indicate to her when she was going to have a seizure, as 

Samantha reported having epilepsy. DHHS also accommodated 

Samantha with breaks to help her with her anxiety.

Ruiz was questioned about Samantha’s progress on the 

DHHS case plan goals and strategies. Samantha was supposed 

to attend visits as scheduled, communicate with family support if she was running late, and not have visits ended due to 

becoming upset, threatening others, or not meeting the needs 

of the child. Ruiz stated Samantha’s progress was “minimal,” 

because she was not attending visits on a regular basis and 

communicating with workers was an issue. When asked if 

Samantha made sufficient progress on the goals in order to 

reunify with Jessalina, Ruiz said, “No.”

When Samantha had visits, she provided for Jessalina’s 

physical needs, “but due to the inconsistencies of visitation 
- 111 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

that was a problem.” There was minimal progress on responding to Jessalina’s needs on cue without a prompt because 

Samantha had a hard time understanding Jessalina’s cues. 

Samantha was supposed to learn to control her anger and not 

yell around Jessalina, and she was supposed to be open to 

family support workers giving her attitude checks. But again, 

there was minimal progress because Samantha did not want 

family support workers to give her any feedback and when 

they gave her an attitude check, she would get upset. There 

was an incident in December 2021 when law enforcement 

was called and Samantha was yelling while holding Jessalina. 

Samantha did not want to take any direction from providers and “didn’t want anybody else to tell her what to do”; 

this inhibited her ability to learn and apply new parenting 

skills. Ruiz stated that Samantha attended counseling, but if 

Samantha became upset, “she would just explode as opposed 

to trying to use some of the coping skills she claimed to be 

gaining during counseling.”

In her case plan, Samantha was supposed to work with her 

service providers to learn how to manage her mental health, 

to parent her child to meet her emotional and physical wellbeing, and to demonstrate that ability consistently for a minimum of 6 months. Ruiz stated that DHHS did not have any 

information on whether Samantha was doing these things, and 

thus her progress was “minimal.” Ruiz said that Samantha 

signed a limited release for her counselor to provide dates 

of appointments attended and recommendations. But when 

DHHS reached out to the counselor, DHHS was not given 

information on recommendations because the counselor said 

that Samantha did not want her to provide that information. 

Samantha was supposed to sign releases for DHHS to doctors or service providers she was working with regarding her 

“mental health, medication management, and neurologist,” 

but Ruiz stated that “we had limited releases, so we still 

didn’t have much information.” DHHS knew that Samantha 

took medication and carried it with her, but “[w]e didn’t 
- 112 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

know what was prescribed or if she was regularly seeing her 

medication management doctor.” Samantha was supposed to 

learn what her diagnosis was and how it affected her on a 

day-to-day basis, as well as how it affected her parenting, but 

Samantha’s progress was minimal in that she said she had “a 

lot of trauma and triggers,” but made “it a responsibility for 

everybody else to walk on eggshells” as opposed to her “taking accountability for her own trauma and triggers.”

According to Ruiz, Samantha’s progress was also “minimal” regarding controlling her emotions and communicating 

rationally without yelling or becoming verbally abusive. Ruiz 

explained that “we would constantly get rude [and vulgar] 

e-mails and text messages from her when things were not 

going her way or she was upset about something.” Samantha 

yelled and became verbally aggressive in phone calls, team 

meetings, and court hearings.

As for maintaining employment, Ruiz said, “I know 

Samantha had a job, and then she didn’t have a job,” and then 

“she wouldn’t report anything to [DHHS], so we weren’t sure 

whether she had a job or not.” Samantha did have suitable 

housing in North Platte.

Ruiz never felt that it would be safe for Samantha to have 

unsupervised visits with Jessalina due to Samantha’s mental 

health not being addressed, and when attempting to address it 

with Samantha, “she would just become very upset” and say 

that there were “other factors that were causing her to be this 

way and that we just didn’t understand and that we . . . didn’t 

know our jobs.”

Ruiz testified that Samantha worked with several different providers in this case but did not maintain relationships 

with any of them. Samantha went through three different 

visitation companies, family support was provided by two 

different companies, and she had a family coach/community 

support. According to Ruiz, the providers left the case because 

Samantha was rude to them either in person or via text or 

email, and because “overall it was just draining for them, 
- 113 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

and nobody wanted to work with her.” Ruiz and her supervisor also received rude emails from Samantha who called them 

names and said they were kidnappers.

Supervised visits changed locations several times to accommodate Samantha. Ruiz stated that supervised visits initially 

occurred 3 or 4 days each week in Sidney, and Samantha 

would stay in a hotel. But then in March 2021, Samantha 

obtained a letter from her counselor stating that Sidney was 

a trigger for Samantha due to trauma. Samantha wanted the 

visits to happen in North Platte so that she would not have to 

travel, but DHHS was concerned that Jessalina would have 

to travel that much (4 hours round trip). Visits were subsequently changed so that they occurred in Chappell, Nebraska, 

and Ogallala, Nebraska. However, Samantha was not consist

ent with her visits in Ogallala, and DHHS was losing providers. Samantha started getting scheduled for one of her visits 

each week in North Platte beginning in July, but Samantha 

did not like the office location of the North Platte visits and 

missed a lot of those visits, meaning that Jessalina was traveling for visits that did not occur. Visits went back to being 

solely in Ogallala in December.

Ruiz did not believe there was a beneficial relationship 

between Samantha and Jessalina. Ruiz acknowledged that 

Jessalina was a happy child and was even happy at visits 

with Samantha. Ruiz did not question the fact that Samantha 

loved Jessalina but said that Jessalina was “not gaining anything” from the relationship. When Samantha was having an 

in-person visit, there was some improvement in her parenting 

skills, and she enjoyed reading to Jessalina. But redirection 

continued to be a problem, something that was also a problem 

in Noah’s case. Samantha’s attendance at visits was not consistent, and for several months, Samantha had been limited to 

virtual visits due to the lack of an updated psychological evaluation. Ruiz believed there was a risk of harm to Jessalina if 

Samantha had continued contact with her, because Jessalina’s 

needs would not be met. Ruiz stated, “[I]t has been about 
- 114 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

Samantha this whole time . . . . It’s always been about her and 

whether things benefit her.” Ruiz worried that Jessalina would 

not get her needs met if Samantha was “upset with a provider 

or something was said that she did not like.” Ruiz supported 

terminating Samantha’s parental rights to Jessalina because “it 

would allow Jessalina to have the permanency she deserves,” 

and Ruiz believed that termination of Samantha’s parental 

rights was in Jessalina’s best interests.

(d) Visitation Providers

(i) September 2020 to February 2021

Janet Vath is the “COO” of Family 4ward, a company that 

contracts with the State to provide supervised visitation and 

family support. Vath testified that Family 4ward started visits 

with Samantha and Jessalina when the child was 2 or 3 days 

old and continued to do so for 6 to 8 months. Samantha traveled to Sidney 3 or 4 days per week for visits and each visit 

was 7 or 8 hours long. Vath personally supervised some of the 

visits when “Samantha would allow me to do them,” but if 

Vath made a decision to cancel a visit if Samantha was late, 

“then [Samantha] would get mad at me, and then she wouldn’t 

want to see me for a while.” Several different visitation workers were assigned to this case because “Samantha was very 

difficult to get along with”; she would work with someone for 

a while and then would get mad at that worker, so a different 

worker would be assigned. Vath testified that “when I finally 

gave the case back, my providers were all threatening to quit 

. . . if they had to do any more visits with Samantha.” Vath 

stated that her company had previously provided supervised 

visitation and family support to Samantha in Noah’s case, but 

“it ended up kind of not in a very good situation” for the same 

reasons—she was difficult to work with and workers did not 

want to work with her anymore.

Vath testified that initially Samantha did a “really good 

job” in Jessalina’s case, but as time went on she “started in 

her old behaviors, her old patterns.” Vath tried to address 
- 115 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

the situation with Samantha, but Samantha “would just blow 

up.” When Jessalina was 3 or 4 months old, Samantha would 

talk about how pizza was Jessalina’s favorite meal; at 6 months 

old, Samantha was going to let Jessalina go down the stairs 

in the playpen; Samantha did not want anybody to watch her 

give Jessalina a bath; when Jessalina would not go to sleep, 

Samantha would get irritated with her and just tell her, at 6 

months old, “you need to go to sleep.” Samantha would not 

take redirection, and the workers never knew if she was going 

to get mad, because “she could go from zero to ten in two 

seconds.” When Samantha was told something that she did not 

want to hear, she could become explosive.

Vath stated that during one visit, Samantha got mad and 

would not hand Jessalina over to the worker, and Family 

4ward’s “CEO” was called. The whole time that Samantha was 

on the phone with the “CEO,” the worker was on the phone 

with Vath. The worker was concerned because Samantha kept 

“kicking and hitting at [her] dog” while holding Jessalina. 

There were other visits when Samantha got mad and would 

“go out and kick the dog,” or “hit the dog.” Toward the end of 

Family 4ward’s time on the case, the company sent two visitation workers to visits.

Vath agreed that Samantha could be a good mother who 

was attentive and who communicated and interacted with her 

child. However, Samantha could also be distant, sitting and 

watching her child, but not interacting with her. Visitation 

notes from Family 4ward for December 2020 through February 

2021 revealed the following: Samantha often focused on things 

other than Jessalina and got upset with workers; she was 

negative toward people who tried to help her and focused 

her energy on being angry rather than accepting assistance 

(e.g., getting help with setting up an account to apply for food 

stamps); and she would not regulate her emotions. The visitation notes also indicated that when Jessalina was 3 months 

old, Samantha once yelled at her for spitting up, was angry 

that Jessalina would not respond when asked what the green 
- 116 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

stripe on her diaper meant, and thought that Jessalina should 

already be walking. When Jessalina was 4 months old, 

Samantha was trying to teach her how to meditate and got frustrated when she cried or would not sleep when she was “‘supposed to.’” The visitation reports also noted that it appeared 

Samantha wanted Jessalina to thrive and grow, would feed and 

change her, and would hold and talk to her.

(ii) June to November 2021

According to Sarah Jones, deputy programs director at 

Independence Rising, the company supervised Samantha’s 

visits with Jessalina from June through November 2021. 

Samantha asked that the company’s first supervision worker 

be removed, so a second worker was assigned. The company ultimately chose to end services with Samantha due to 

“numerous no-shows from Samantha” and inappropriate ways 

that Samantha would speak to workers. Jones testified that 

Samantha used “[v]ery volatile language, a lot of swearing, 

screaming at us on the phone.” Jones explained that Samantha 

was upset because “she was more than 15 minutes late to her 

visit, so the visit was ended, and that she thought that we . . . 

should be held in contempt of court.”

Jones sent an email to DHHS on December 3, 2021, 

informing DHHS of the reasons why the company was no 

longer willing to supervise Samantha’s visits. Samantha was 

to receive 18 hours of supervised visitation each week. She 

“no showed” for two visits in June, six in July, one in August, 

four in September, four in October, and two in November—

these “no shows” did not include visits where Samantha 

canceled or failed to confirm in advance as required. Jones’ 

email also stated that the “biggest issue” was “Samantha’s 

demeanor and attitude toward supervisory staff, as well as 

the family support workers”; numerous workers refused to 

work with Samantha because of “the behavior, harassment, 

and profanity that they constantly receive”; and workers “had 

to actually block Samantha’s number/email address as the 
- 117 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

messages would continue all day and night.” The company 

did not feel that it was in the interests of its employees to 

subject them to Samantha’s behavior.

The visitation notes from Independence Rising show that 

Samantha fed, changed, and played appropriately with Jessalina 

during visits. However, on cross-examination, Jones stated that 

when Samantha would no-show on her visits, it was “very 

hard on Jessalina having been transported all that way” to then 

have no visit. Also, one worker mentioned multiple times that 

any time she would help to redirect Samantha, she was fearful 

of the response she would get, and the worker also got emails 

from Samantha at 4 a.m. that were difficult for the worker. 

Jones herself received inappropriate emails from Samantha 

outside of visits.

(iii) December 2021 to 

January 2022 Visitation

A new visitation provider was utilized in December 2021, 

and Samantha attended a majority of her visits, although she 

was late on several occasions. Ruiz acknowledged being contacted by Samantha’s counsel, who had concerns about the 

relationship between the male visitation worker and Samantha 

and thought that maybe they were “getting along a little too 

well.” Then on December 27, Samantha called law enforcement during her visit; along with a police officer, two “CFS” 

workers also went to the location of the visit. According to 

Ruiz, Samantha was holding Jessalina and putting her in 

an unsafe situation when the workers were trying to take 

Jessalina so law enforcement could continue their investigation. The police officer did not arrest anyone. Ruiz acknowledged that the visitation worker and Samantha gave different 

versions of what transpired during the visit. After that visit, 

Ruiz arranged for a different visitation worker to supervise the visits. Exhibits received into evidence show that 

Samantha attended another visit in December with a new 

supervision worker, but in January 2022, she missed all six of 
- 118 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

her scheduled visits through January 12; she failed to confirm 

four of those visits, confirmed but failed to show for another 

visit, and canceled due to illness for the other visit.

(iv) February 2022 Change 

to Video Visits

On February 2, 2022, the juvenile court entered an order 

for video visits only. Ruiz testified that the court ordered all 

visits to occur virtually because of Samantha’s “no-shows” 

and because she had not updated her psychological evaluation. 

Video visits were scheduled to occur three times each week 

for 15 minutes per visit. Samantha missed all 10 of her scheduled visits for February 2022 because she failed to confirm; in 

March, she missed her first video visits, but then attended 6 

of her 8 remaining visits scheduled that month; in April, she 

attended 8 out of 13 scheduled visits; in May, she attended 10 

out of 13 scheduled visits; and in June, she attended 11 out 

of 13 scheduled visits. During the termination trial, Samantha 

attended only three out of eight scheduled visits between the 

July 20 and August 12 hearing dates, and she missed both of 

her scheduled visits between the August 12 and 19 hearing 

dates. According to Ruiz, Samantha could have reestablished 

in-person visits at any point by completing an updated psychological evaluation, and Ruiz believed Samantha’s failure 

to do so was an indication of her unwillingness to work on the 

case plan goals.

(e) Jessalina’s Father

Jose testified that his divorce from Samantha was finalized 

in 2021 and that Jessalina was placed with him in the middle 

of January 2022. Samantha sent messages to Jose asking him 

to let her see Jessalina without DHHS’ knowledge, but he did 

not respond. Jose said that Samantha also sent him threatening 

text messages saying that she was “going to explode me up” 

and that she was coming after Jessalina. Jose was concerned 

about the messages because Jessalina was with him all the 
- 119 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

time. He supported terminating Samantha’s parental rights 

to Jessalina.

We note that during Jose’s testimony, Samantha repeatedly 

interrupted. The juvenile court informed her that if she continued to interrupt, she would be excluded from the hearing. 

Samantha told the judge that she could not be excluded from 

her own hearing and that the judge was allowing people to lie 

on the stand. The court informed Samantha that she could be 

excluded if she interrupted and that she had two attorneys representing her with whom she could visit. When Jose continued 

a response, Samantha interrupted again and told him to “shut 

[his] mouth.” The court asked Samantha’s GAL if she wanted 

to visit with Samantha and to suggest that she not interrupt 

anymore. Samantha said, “No, I don’t need suggestion. I am 

tired of dealing with the false allegations . . . that constantly 

— like, I am tired of it.” Her counsel asked if there was a way 

for the moderator to mute Samantha on “Zoom,” and the clerk 

informed the court that the moderator had been muting her, but 

that Samantha was unmuting herself.

Jose was asked what his concerns were if the juvenile court 

did not terminate Samantha’s parental rights. He responded, 

“[A]s you can see just a few minutes ago, just outbursts 

and whatnot.” Jose stated that Samantha did not abide by 

anybody’s rules except her own. During his marriage to 

Samantha, she said that Noah was no longer with her because 

“they kidnapped him for no reason.” She also accused Jose 

of kidnapping Jessalina. Samantha “manipulates situations 

and scenarios.”

(f) Samantha’s Witnesses

Kourtney Sabala, a psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner, was called as a witness for Samantha. Sabala testified 

that Samantha has been her patient since January 2021, and 

Sabala provides medication management for her. According to 

Sabala, Samantha was diagnosed with “attention hyperactive 
- 120 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

deficit disorder,” post-traumatic stress disorder, and major 

depressive disorder; she has one medication for “ADHD,” and 

a second medication helps treat the other diagnoses. Sabala 

received regular requests for Samantha’s medication to be 

refilled, and Samantha appeared for followup appointments. 

Sabala had not diagnosed Samantha with bipolar disorder.

Sandra Raney was also called as a witness for Samantha. 

Raney testified that she has a master of arts degree in counseling and a master’s degree in addictions counseling; is an 

addictions alcohol and drug counselor; and is a licensed mental health professional, a certified professional counselor, a 

certified anger resolution therapist, and a clinically certified 

trauma professional. Raney never met Samantha or Jessalina. 

Raney reviewed Dr. Kimzey’s evaluation, visitation notes from 

January and September 2021, and some of the exhibits in 

the record.

What stood out for Raney was that Samantha was very 

attentive to Jessalina, and when Samantha was emotionally 

dysregulated, she separated herself from the child “which 

was insightful on her part”; additionally, it was not reported 

that Samantha had become aggressive with Jessalina. When 

asked if 15-minute video visits were actually meaningful, 

Raney replied, “[T]hey are conversating,” and “[t]hat is a 

very meaningful thing.” If Samantha is missing visits because 

she overslept, it could be an issue with medications throwing 

off her sleep schedule; on cross-examination, Raney agreed 

that if sleep had been an issue for 2 years, it was fair to say 

that it was not being treated. Raney did not believe it was 

appropriate to say that Jessalina would be hurt by a relationship with Samantha until there was more information, and 

she believed that an evaluation of the parent-child interaction and attachments would be helpful. For Samantha and 

Jessalina to continue having a relationship even if Jose has 

the child, Samantha needs to do medication management and 

counseling, as well as prove she is taking care of herself as 
- 121 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

demonstrated by her behaviors. Raney said, “So [Jose] needs 

to be able to see that by [Samantha’s] behavior it is safe to 

allow the daughter to have short windows of opportunities 

or visits.”

On cross-examination, Raney stated that Samantha “needs 

to get the mental health addressed . . . to continue to have 

the relationship with the daughter, but I don’t believe it’s 

fair to terminate her rights because of her mental health.” 

Raney acknowledged that it would be important information if Samantha was ordered to do an updated psychological 

evaluation and refused to do so, and if she was ordered to do 

counseling and provide those records for verification. When 

asked if failing to do those things indicated that Samantha 

was not willing to address her mental health, Raney replied, 

“It’s showing that she’s afraid.” When asked if it would be a 

problem if Samantha refused, screaming and yelling, to turn 

Jessalina over to law enforcement, Raney responded, “When 

you don’t understand the effects of trauma and the response, 

what we have is minimal information because also what I’ve 

heard is there’s possibilities that she has a deeper mental 

health issue that’s going on,” so “I can also see her being 

protective of the child because she feels there’s a threat.” 

When asked if she would expect some sort of improvement to 

be evident after 5 years with state aid and multiple agencies, 

Raney said, “Yes.”

3. Juvenile Court’s Decision

In a journal entry and order entered on August 29, 2022, 

the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that 

statutory grounds for termination of Samantha’s parental rights 

existed pursuant to § 43-292(2), (3), (5), (6), and (7). The court 

also found that Samantha was an unfit parent and that termination of her parental rights was in the child’s best interests. 

Accordingly, the court terminated Samantha’s parental rights 

to Jessalina.

Samantha appeals.
- 122 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Samantha assigns, consolidated and restated, as follows: 

That in the county court for Lincoln County, (1) her constitutional rights were violated and the court erred when it 

transferred this juvenile case from its original jurisdiction to 

another jurisdiction, because the court denied her a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine witnesses when the GAL 

was excused from the hearing and because the court dismissed 

her court-appointed attorneys before a hearing or ruling on a 

previously scheduled contested hearing on her objection to 

a DHHS court report and case plan. That the county court for 

Cheyenne County erred (2) in finding that grounds for terminating her parental rights existed pursuant to § 43-292(2), 

(3), (5), (6), and (7); and (3) in finding that she was unfit 

and that terminating her parental rights was in Jessalina’s 

best interests.

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1,2] An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo 

on the record and reaches its conclusions independently of 

the findings made by the juvenile court below. In re Interest 

of Mateo L. et al., 309 Neb. 565, 961 N.W.2d 516 (2021). 

However, when the evidence is in conflict, an appellate court 

may consider and give weight to the fact that the juvenile 

court observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the 

facts over another. Id.

V. ANALYSIS

1. Transfer to Cheyenne County

Samantha argues that her “Due Process and Constitutional 

rights were violated, and the trial court erred when the Lincoln 

County Court transferred this Juvenile case from its original jurisdiction.” Brief for appellant at 17. Specifically, that 

“[t]he court dismissed Samantha’s court appointed attorneys 

and denied Samantha’s meaningful opportunity to confront 

accusers or cross examine witnesses, before hearing or ruling 
- 123 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

on a previously scheduled contested hearing on Samantha’s 

Objection” to a DHHS court report and case plan. Id.

(a) Principles of Law

Section 43-282 states in relevant part:

If a petition alleging a juvenile to be within the 

jurisdiction of the Nebraska Juvenile Code is filed in a 

county other than the county where the juvenile is presently living or domiciled, the court, at any time after 

adjudication and prior to final termination of jurisdiction, may transfer the proceedings to the county where 

the juvenile lives or is domiciled and the court having 

juvenile court jurisdiction therein shall thereafter have 

sole charge of such proceedings and full authority to 

enter any order it could have entered had the adjudication occurred therein.

See, also, In re Interest of Jeremy U. et al., 304 Neb. 734, 

936 N.W.2d 733 (2020) (§ 43-282 allows proceedings to be 

transferred, after adjudication, to county where juvenile lives 

or is domiciled); In re Interest of Tegan V., 18 Neb. App. 857, 

794 N.W.2d 190 (2011) (§ 43-282 allows adjudication proceeding to be filed in any county and allows for discretionary 

transfer, after adjudication, to county where juvenile is living 

or domiciled).

(b) Procedural Background

On June 17, 2021, several months after Jessalina was 

adjudicated, her GAL filed a motion to transfer the case to 

Cheyenne County pursuant to § 43-282. The contents of the 

motion and Samantha’s response were set forth earlier in 

this opinion.

At the June 30, 2021, hearing on the motion to transfer, the 

juvenile court stated that although the strict rules of evidence 

did not apply and it was a discretionary matter for the court 

under § 43-282, it would receive evidence. The court also 

stated that Jessalina’s GAL was excused from the hearing but 
- 124 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

was authorized to present evidence by affidavit; that affidavit was received into evidence without objection. The affidavit reiterated the reasons set forth in the GAL’s motion 

to transfer regarding the location of all relevant persons; 

that all visitations occurred outside of Lincoln County, with 

the majority occurring in Cheyenne County; Samantha had a 

recently expired domestic abuse protection order against Jose 

in Cheyenne County; Samantha and Jose had a divorce proceeding pending in Cheyenne County; the May 4, 2021, DHHS 

court report set forth the history of the case and showed the 

lack of meaningful contact with Lincoln County; and Jose had 

progressed significantly toward reunification with Jessalina as 

compared to Samantha and “placement should occur with him 

as the case closes down.” Numerous exhibits were attached to 

the affidavit.

A report from Samantha’s GAL was also received into evidence. This report stated that Samantha lived in North Platte, 

where she had moved while pregnant with Jessalina because 

Jose was physically abusive; her therapist and doctors were in 

North Platte; she was already required to travel for visits with 

Jessalina, and such travel interfered with Samantha’s mental 

health and her ability to look for employment; and the travel 

created obstacles to her ability to parent. Also received into 

evidence was a March 18, 2021, letter from Samantha’s therapist recommending that Samantha’s visitations be held outside 

of Sidney because of trauma Samantha experienced there; the 

trauma led to a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, 

and putting Samantha near the place her trauma occurred was 

not in her best interests. A visitation schedule showed that 

Samantha was scheduled to have visits in Ogallala and North 

Platte. Upon inquiry by the juvenile court, Samantha’s counsel confirmed that none of Samantha’s visits were occurring 

in Sidney.

The State argued that it was in favor of a transfer to 

Sidney because in Sidney they have “a lengthy background” with Samantha and terminated her parental rights 
- 125 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

previously, witnesses testifying on behalf of the State would 

primarily be in the Sidney area if there was a parental termination, Jessalina had been in Sidney the “entire time” except 

for a few days, and Jessalina’s father was in Sidney. DHHS 

concurred and also requested that the case be transferred to 

Cheyenne County. DHHS noted that the case manager and 

supervisor for the case would remain the same, so there would 

not be any interruption in case management. Jose’s counsel 

stated that Jose agreed with the transfer.

Samantha’s GAL argued that it appeared that the reason for 

seeking a transfer was to immediately file for a termination of 

Samantha’s parental rights. Her GAL added that “it’s certainly 

clear to anybody who’s participated that Samantha has been 

frustrated and angry at times,” and “it is also no secret that 

she has some mental health issues,” specifically post-traumatic 

stress disorder and “ADHD.” But “rather than aiding her, it 

has . . . been like a hammer against her.” Traveling for all of 

her visits “posed a serious problem” (e.g., holding a job and 

being on time for visits).

Samantha’s attorney was “concerned about the timing of 

this being solely an effort to get this somewhere where someone will do something to terminate [Samantha’s] rights.” 

Counsel argued that Samantha’s caseworker, other providers, 

and her appointed attorneys that she had for 8 months would 

change if the case were transferred to Cheyenne County. As 

for witnesses, Samantha’s psychiatrist, therapist, and physician were “here,” she had support workers in North Platte, 

and her caseworker’s supervisor was in North Platte. Counsel 

argued that a transfer would further delay a hearing on 

Samantha’s objection to the May 4, 2021, case plan. Counsel 

stated, “I think that if ever there was an appropriate time to 

transfer this case it was immediately following the adjudication,” and “[i]t’s not now” as it would be prejudicial to 

Samantha, not to mention costly to the judicial system and 

inefficient. Counsel said that she “just can’t see the need 
- 126 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

to transfer” this case and that “[i]t’s completely within the 

court’s discretion.”

The juvenile court entered its order on July 2, 2021, transferring the matter to Cheyenne County. The court noted that 

Jessalina had lived in Cheyenne County since September 2020 

and that the proceedings had transitioned past the adjudication phase for both parents. All parties except Samantha 

“have joined in or agreed to the [GAL’s] request to transfer 

jurisdiction,” and the GAL’s affidavit “points out that the 

transfer would be in the best interest of the minor for a variety of reasons.” The court stated, “It should be noted that if a 

transfer would take place, virtually no interruption of services 

will occur, nor will the mother’s visitation be disrupted.” The 

court did “not disagree that the mother suffers from serious 

mental health issues and that special care must be taken if a 

transfer were granted to accommodate her needs”; “[h]owever, 

the issue isn’t whether the transfer of this Court’s jurisdiction 

is in the best interest of the mother but the best interest of 

the child.” The court said that Samantha’s concerns could be 

accommodated by virtual court appearances if medically necessary and continued visitations outside of Sidney. The court 

also deferred the contested review hearing on the court report 

and case plan.

(c) Transfer Was Proper

Initially, we note that Samantha claims that “[b]ecause the 

trial court excused Jessalina’s GAL [from the transfer hearing], 

Samantha could not confront her accuser.” Brief for appellant at 21. However, at the transfer hearing, Samantha neither 

objected to the GAL being excused nor the receipt of the 

GAL’s affidavit into evidence; she therefore waived any argument regarding her right to confront the GAL. And regardless, 

Samantha’s GAL, as well as Samantha’s attorney, made numerous arguments to counter the points made by Jessalina’s GAL 

in support of transferring the case.
- 127 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

Samantha also contends that the transfer was prejudicial to 

her because it caused a delay in the contested hearing regarding DHHS’ May 4, 2021, court report and case plan. However, 

Samantha continued to be provided with services and visitation until the contested hearing was held in Cheyenne County 

on September 21, 2021. At the hearing, Samantha’s lawyer 

asked the court not to adopt the May 4 plan and to have DHHS 

rewrite the case plan to leave out the adoption language and to 

acknowledge “things” that Samantha had done.

Samantha’s GAL also said the “adoption” language (concurrent plan) should be redacted. Jessalina’s GAL asked the 

court to adopt the plan, but understood the plan was now 4 

months old and needed an update, and suggested they come 

back in 30 days. The State said it was “not entirely sure what 

the objection was” other than the concurrent plan of adoption. 

Following the hearing, the juvenile court modified the DHHS 

court report and case plan “to eliminate Adoption as an alternative to reunification at this time,” and approved the court report 

and case plan “as modified.”

It appears that Samantha’s objection to the case plan dated 

May 4, 2021, was the language concerning an alternative plan 

of adoption, and that language was “eliminated” by the juvenile 

court as requested. The May 4 DHHS case plan contained identical case plan goals and strategies for Samantha as appeared in 

the February 17 plan; the only difference was that the May plan 

contained updates on Samantha’s progress. Additionally, the 

subsequent case plan dated November 2, 2021, was approved 

by the court on November 30 over Samantha’s objections. The 

November 2 plan once again contained identical case plan 

goals and strategies for Samantha as appeared in the previous 

plans, with the only difference being updated progress notes. 

Given the foregoing, we fail to see how Samantha’s rights were 

violated or how she was prejudiced by the transfer of the case 

to Cheyenne County. We find no error in the juvenile court’s 

decision to transfer the case.
- 128 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

2. Statutory Grounds 

for Termination

The State and Jessalina’s GAL sought to terminate 

Samantha’s parental rights to Jessalina under § 43-292(2), (3), 

(5), (6), and (7). The juvenile court found that all five of those 

grounds existed by clear and convincing evidence.

[3] Section 43-292(7) allows for termination when “[t]he 

juvenile has been in an out-of-home placement for fifteen or 

more months of the most recent twenty-two months.” By the 

plain and ordinary meaning of the language in § 43-292(7), 

there are no exceptions to the condition of 15 out of 22 months’ 

out-of-home placement. In re Interest of Mateo L. et al., 309 

Neb. 565, 961 N.W.2d 516 (2021). Section 43-292(7) operates 

mechanically and, unlike the other subsections of the statute, 

does not require the State to adduce evidence of any specific 

fault on the part of a parent. In re Interest of Mateo L. et al., 

supra. In other words, if the period of 15 out of 22 months 

is met, § 43-292(7) is met. See In re Interest of Mateo L. et 

al., supra.

[4] Section § 43-292(7) does not specifically provide a 

triggering event for when the 22-month look-back period 

should commence. Compare § 43-292(1) (termination of 

parental rights allowed when parents have abandoned juvenile 

for 6 months or more immediately prior to filing of petition). Notably, however, to terminate parental rights under 

§ 43-292(7), it must be alleged in the petition or motion to 

terminate parental rights that the juvenile has been in an outof-home placement for 15 or more months of the most recent 

22 months. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-291 (Reissue 2016) 

(facts alleging grounds for termination of parental rights set 

forth in original petition, supplemental petition, or motion 

for termination of parental rights). Thus, the logical conclusion is that the filing of the petition, supplemental petition, 

or motion to terminate parental rights is the triggering event 

for the 22-month look-back period described in § 43-292(7). 

See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292.02 (Cum. Supp. 2022) 
- 129 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

(petition shall be filed on behalf of State to terminate parental rights of juvenile’s parents if juvenile has been in foster 

care under responsibility of State for 15 or more months of 

most recent 22 months; exceptions provided). The Nebraska 

Supreme Court has also used the filing date of the petition 

when considering § 43-292(7). See, In re Interest of Nicole 

M., 287 Neb. 685, 844 N.W.2d 65 (2014) (at time State filed 

to terminate parental rights, children had been in out-of-home 

placement for over 21 months; sufficient evidence under 

§ 43-292(7)); In re Interest of Shelby L., 270 Neb. 150, 699 

N.W.2d 392 (2005) (child in continuous out-of-home placement for 15 months 12 days when termination petition filed; 

if this were only ground for termination, only question would 

be whether termination was in child’s best interests).

Jessalina was removed from Samantha’s care and custody 

on September 10, 2020, while she was still in the hospital 

after her birth, and Jessalina never returned to Samantha’s 

home. Jessalina was placed with her father on January 10, 

2022. Assuming without deciding that the time Jessalina was 

placed with her father did not count as an out-of-home placement for purposes of § 43-292(7), Jessalina had been in an 

out-of-home placement for 16 months from September 10, 

2020, until January 10, 2022. The “complaint” to terminate 

Samantha’s parental rights was filed on March 25, 2022. 

Therefore, the 22-month look-back period would run from 

May 25, 2020, to March 25, 2022, which includes the 16 

months of out-of-home placement from the time of Jessalina’s 

removal until she was placed with her father. Further, even 

when looking back at the most recent 22 months preceding 

the July 20, 2022, commencement of the parental termination 

hearing (September 20, 2020, to July 20, 2022), Jessalina had 

been in an out-of-home placement for 15 of those 22 months 

as of December 20, 2021.

The State has shown clearly and convincingly that 

§ 43-292(7) exists as a statutory basis for terminating the 

parental rights of Samantha. And since any one of the bases 
- 130 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

for termination codified in § 43-292 can serve as the basis for 

termination, we need not consider the sufficiency of the evidence concerning any other statutory basis for termination. In 

re Interest of Mateo L. et al., 309 Neb. 565, 961 N.W.2d 516 

(2021). We next consider whether termination is in the child’s 

best interests.

3. Best Interests and Unfitness

[5-7] Under § 43-292, 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. 

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 

Leyton C. & Landyn C., 307 Neb. 529, 949 N.W.2d 773 (2020). 

This presumption is overcome only when the State has proved 

that the parent is unfit. Id. Although the term “unfitness” is 

not expressly stated in § 43-292, the Nebraska Supreme Court 

has said that it derives from the fault and neglect subsections 

of that statute and from an assessment of the child’s best interests. In re Interest of Mateo L. et al., supra. 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. In re Interest of Leyton C. & Landyn 

C., supra. The best interests analysis and the parental fitness 

analysis are separate inquiries, but each examines essentially 

the same underlying facts as the other. Id. We have previously 

set forth the evidence presented at the termination hearing, and 

we will not recount it again here.

Notably, the same issues that were present in the previous case with Noah were again present here in that Samantha 

failed to address her mental health issues and failed to 

make progress on case plans. In the current case, DHHS 
- 131 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

provided numerous services to Samantha, including family 

support with two different agencies, supervised visitation with 

three different agencies, makeup visitation, “Zoom” visits, 

home visits, case management, team meetings, hotel vouchers, 

gas vouchers, transportation, and assistance with time management; she failed to utilize all of the services provided to her. 

Additionally, Samantha failed to sign releases for DHHS to 

access counseling and medical records, DHHS was only provided a partial copy of Dr. Kimzey’s evaluation, and Samantha 

failed to complete an updated evaluation; all of these things 

inhibited DHHS’ ability to help Samantha. Samantha’s failure 

to utilize or engage in services, and her failure or inability to 

work with the providers who were trying to help her, inhibited 

her ability to reunify with Jessalina.

While Samantha’s visits with Jessalina were generally good 

when they occurred, they did not occur consistently. She 

even missed visits that were to occur in North Platte and 

would not have required her to travel. And Samantha never 

progressed beyond supervised visitation. Jessalina had been 

out of Samantha’s care for 22 months at the time the termination hearing commenced in July 2022. Samantha had not 

seen Jessalina in person since January, and from February to 

August, they only had three 15-minute video visits scheduled 

each week, because Samantha had not obtained an updated 

psychological evaluation. Samantha missed many of the video 

visits, as described previously.

[8] “Children cannot, and should not, be suspended in 

foster care or be made to await uncertain parental maturity.” 

In re Interest of Walter W., 274 Neb. 859, 872, 744 N.W.2d 

55, 65 (2008). And where a parent is unable or unwilling to 

rehabilitate himself or herself within a reasonable time, the 

best interests of the child require termination of the parental 

rights. In re Interest of Ryder J., supra. The State proved 

that Samantha was unfit, meaning that she has a personal 

deficiency or incapacity which has prevented, or will prevent, performance of a reasonable parental obligation in child 
- 132 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JESSALINA M.

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 98

rearing and which has caused, or probably will result in, detriment to the child’s well-being. See In re Interest of Leyton C. 

& Landyn C., supra. We further find that there is clear and 

convincing evidence that it is in Jessalina’s best interests to 

terminate Samantha’s parental rights.

VI. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we affirm the order of the juvenile court terminating Samantha’s parental rights to Jessalina.

Affirmed.