Title: In Re Interest of CA
Citation: 235 Neb. 893, 457 N.W.2d 822
Docket Number: 1404
State: Nebraska
Issuer: Nebraska Supreme Court
Date: July 20, 1990

457 N.W.2d 822 (1990) 235 Neb. 893 In re Interest of C.A., a Child Under 18 Years of Age. STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. B.T., Appellant. No. 89-1404. Supreme Court of Nebraska. July 20, 1990. *823 Elizabeth C. Schrock, Omaha, for appellant. Karen L. Vervaecke, Omaha, guardian ad litem. HASTINGS, C.J., and BOSLAUGH, WHITE, CAPORALE, SHANAHAN, GRANT, and FAHRNBRUCH, JJ. SHANAHAN, Justice. Pursuant to the Nebraska Juvenile Code, Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 43-245 et seq. (Reissue 1988), the separate juvenile court of Douglas County, on November 19, 1986, conducted an adjudication hearing attended by C.A.'s biological parents, lawyers for the parents, C.A.'s guardian ad litem, the State's attorney, and a representative of the Nebraska Department of Social Services (DSS). The court determined that C.A. was a juvenile within § 43-247(3)(a) (a child who is in a situation dangerous to life or limb or injurious to the health or morals of the child). On November 6, 1989, the juvenile court terminated parental rights concerning C.A., on account of parental abandonment of C.A. for more than 6 months immediately prior to the State's filing its petition for termination of parental rights. See § 43-292(1). C.A.'s mother, B.T., has appealed, but C.A.'s father has not appealed. In re Interest of T.C., 226 Neb. 116, 117-18, 409 N.W.2d 607, 609 (1987); In re Interest of J.L.M. et al., 234 Neb. 381, 451 N.W.2d 377 (1990). C.A. was born on January 13, 1982, to R.A. and B.T., who had been married since October 1979. The marriage of R.A. and B.T. was dissolved in September 1985, and R.A. was granted custody of his daughter, C.A. In January 1986, after the Omaha Police Division received a complaint that R.A. was sexually abusing C.A., the child was placed in the temporary custody of DSS. On February 13, 1986, the State filed a petition and alleged that C.A. was a child within § 43-247(3)(a) on account of R.A.'s sexual misconduct with C.A. Pending adjudication, C.A. remained in the temporary custody of DSS. Also, during pendency of the adjudication proceedings, the child's mother, B.T., married J.T. on March 28, 1986, and requested temporary custody of C.A. in the proceedings pending before the juvenile court, a request which the court denied. At the adjudication hearing on November 19, 1986, the court found the allegations of the State's petition to be true, determined that C.A. was a juvenile within § 43-247(3)(a), and, at a dispositional hearing on July 9, 1987, continued DSS' temporary custody of C.A. for placement with B.T. and J.T., the child's stepfather. The court further ordered that B.T. and J.T. participate in counseling and maintain a suitable residence and income, and also ordered that the child's father, R.A., submit to a psychological evaluation and maintain visitation with C.A. under DSS supervision. B.T. and J.T., without court approval, took C.A. to Joplin, Missouri, in December 1987. The court record does not disclose the reason for that change of residence. Around February 17, 1988, B.T. "decided that she no longer wanted to care for [C.A.]" and voluntarily gave C.A. to the Missouri Department of Social Services in Joplin, which, in turn, returned C.A. to DSS in Nebraska. The court held a review hearing on February 23, 1988. B.T. did not attend the hearing, but remained in Joplin. The court ordered that C.A. remain in DSS' temporary custody for "appropriate foster care placement." On March 16, the court ordered that C.A. should receive therapy arranged by DSS. In April, B.T. filed, but later withdrew, a motion to transfer the proceedings to Missouri. Although notified, B.T. failed to attend additional review hearings held on June 21 and September 23, but was represented by her lawyer at those hearings, in which the court continued DSS' temporary custody of C.A. During the September hearing, the court was informed that C.A. was "experiencing a lot of depression from being abandoned by her mother." Without having had any contact with C.A. for nearly a year, B.T. arrived in Omaha on February 10, 1989, with the expressed *825 intention of regaining custody of her daughter. Kara Murphy, a juvenile court probation officer, told B.T. that she should meet with caseworkers for C.A. At a meeting on March 1, which included B.T.; Betty Burton, who was a Child Protective Services worker; C.A.'s therapist; and Murphy, B.T. was told that she would have to participate in counseling as a condition for visiting C.A. At a review hearing held on April 17, Murphy testified: B.T. did not attend the April 17 hearing, but was represented by counsel who, in reference to Murphy's testimony, conceded that "[e]verything that has been said appears to be correct." B.T.'s counsel did state, however, that B.T. was attempting to exchange letters with C.A. Also, at the April 17 hearing, the court, without objection, received Burton's DSS case report regarding the meeting between B.T. and the caseworkers for C.A.: The child's father, R.A., did not attend the hearing. R.A. had never visited C.A. after the hearing in November 1988 and, since November 1988, had not participated in counseling ordered by the court. At the conclusion of the April 17 hearing, the court ordered that C.A. continue receiving therapy and remain in DSS' temporary custody. On May 2, 1989, the State filed a motion or petition to terminate the parental rights of B.T. and R.A. Regarding the child's mother, the State alleged that B.T. had abandoned C.A. "for a period in excess of six months immediately preceding the filing of said motion herein, to wit: [B.T.] has had no contact with said child, nor provided any financial or emotional support for said child for over one year." In her answer, B.T. denied that she had abandoned C.A., "in that on February 10, 1989, the natural mother returned to Omaha and immediately requested a visit with her daughter. This request was denied." A hearing for termination of parental rights was held on November 6, 1989. Although C.A.'s parents had approximately 6 months' notice of the State's motion to terminate their parental rights, neither *826 B.T., who was still residing in Joplin, nor R.A. appeared at the hearing, although B.T.'s lawyer appeared on her behalf. At the termination hearing, Burton and Murphy recounted the circumstances regarding B.T.'s visit to Omaha in February 1989 and subsequent return to Missouri shortly after the March 1 meeting with C.A.'s caseworkers. Burton explained why it was necessary that B.T. participate in therapy before resuming contact with C.A.: "[B.T.] had taken [C.A.] to the Missouri Department of Social Services and indicated to them at that time that she didn't want to care for her and that [would be] devastating to [C.A.] for that to happen again." Murphy testified that B.T. stayed at the Vincent House, a shelter for the homeless, when she appeared in Omaha in February 1989. Murphy also testified that at the March 1 conference with C.A.'s caseworkers, B.T. was initially willing to stay a "few short months" so that she might be reunited with C.A. However, B.T. departed for Missouri after arrangements for her counseling had been made. Although B.T. did not present any witness at the termination hearing, it was noted that B.T. had sent C.A. four letters and a birthday card during the period when, according to the State, B.T. had abandoned C.A. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court, having found that C.A. was a child within the meaning of § 43-247(3)(a), determined that the evidence clearly and convincingly established that C.A.'s parents, B.T. and R.A., had abandoned C.A. for the 6 months immediately preceding commencement of the termination proceedings, that is, the 6 months before the State filed its petition. See § 43-292(1). The court concluded that the best interests of C.A. required termination of parental rights and, therefore, terminated the parental rights of B.T. and R.A. concerning C.A. B.T. contends that the court erred in the conclusion that there was clear and convincing evidence of parental abandonment as a basis to terminate her parental rights concerning C.A. B.T. also argues that the court erred in finding that the termination of B.T.'s parental rights was in C.A.'s best interests. Concerning the termination of parental rights on account of abandonment, this court has recognized that In re Interest of J.L.M. et al., 234 Neb. 381, 398, 451 N.W.2d 377, 388 (1990). Whether a parent has abandoned a child within the meaning of &amp; sect; 43-292(1) is a question of fact and depends on parental intent, which may be determined by circumstantial evidence. See In re Interest of *827 A.G.G., 230 Neb. 707, 433 N.W.2d 185 (1988). B.T. argues that she attempted to maintain physical contact with C.A. in February 1989, which would have been within the 6 months before the State filed its petition to terminate parental rights, but was denied contact by DSS and C.A.'s therapist. According to B.T., DSS "felt that it was more important for [B.T.] to jump through a series of `commitment hoops' before she would be allowed to see her daughter." Brief for appellant at 11. Regarding B.T.'s claim that she was improperly prevented from visiting C.A., we note that &amp; sect; 43-284 of the juvenile code provides: Section 43-284 does not authorize DSS to determine or place restrictions on parental visitation rights. Parental visitation rights, as a subject within the Nebraska Juvenile Code, are matters for judicial determination. Illustrative of the need for judicial determination regarding a matter pertinent to children within a court's jurisdiction is Ensrud v. Ensrud, 230 Neb. 720, 729, 433 N.W.2d 192, 199 (1988), where the trial court, pursuant to a dissolution decree, ordered that physical custody of Ensruds' child was "exercisable as directed by the child custody officer." In disapproving of the trial court's delegatory action, we stated: .... Ensrud, supra at 730-31, 433 N.W.2d at 199. Notwithstanding DSS' lack of authority to determine parental visitation rights, the present appeal is distinguishable from Ensrud and Deacon, since the juvenile court did not grant or delegate to DSS any authority to determine visitation rights concerning C.A. B.T., who was represented by a lawyer, could have requested that the court examine DSS' directive that B.T. obtain counseling as a condition for visiting C.A. However, B.T. chose to return to Missouri without any further contact with DSS or the court. Furthermore, we also point out that B.T.'s actions during the 6 months preceding the State's motion to terminate cannot be viewed in total isolation from B.T.'s previous conduct and absence from C.A., especially since DSS' reluctance to allow B.T. to see C.A. was the result of B.T.'s past indifference to C.A.'s well-being. B.T.'s indifference was clearly exhibited in her voluntarily delivering C.A. to the Missouri Department of Social Services; in failing to have any contact with C.A., or to make any effort to contact the child, from *828 February 1988 to February 1989; and, without excuse or justification, in failing to appear at court hearings in 1988 and 1989 concerning C.A. We note that child custody by DSS gives the department some authority similar to a guardian's authority. See &amp; sect; 43-285: "In any case when the court shall award a juvenile to the care of [DSS], the juvenile shall, unless otherwise ordered, become a ward and be subject to the guardianship of the department...." In view of § 43-285, DSS, although lacking authority to determine parental visitation rights, was, subject to judicial review, authorized to set conditions beneficial for reestablishment of contact between C.A. and B.T. Overall, B.T. still had the ability to secure visitation rights through the juvenile court. Thus, we conclude that B.T.'s 1989 appearance for a visit with C.A. in Omaha and DSS' response do not excuse or justify B.T.'s extended absence from C.A.'s life. B.T. also contends, however, that "`physical presence'" is not a "pivotal requirement in a determination of abandonment," and, thus, contact was maintained with C.A. "throughout the six months immediately prior to the filing of the Petition" because "the record clearly shows that [B.T.] wrote letters and a card...." Brief for appellant at 15. "`Abandonment is not an ambulatory thing the legal effects of which a parent may dissipate at will by token efforts at reclaiming a discarded child.'" In re Interest of J.M.D., 233 Neb. 540, 543, 446 N.W.2d 233, 235 (1989). While we do not ignore B.T.'s letters and card to C.A., nevertheless, under the circumstances, such actions by B.T., in the context of B.T.'s past behavior, are small tokens of parental affection for a child and an inadequate substitute for parental presence in a child's life. From our de novo review of the record, we conclude that the evidence is clear and convincing that B.T. abandoned C.A. for a period of 6 months before the State filed its petition for termination of B.T.'s parental rights. It is also clear that the State has established that termination of B.T.'s parental rights is in the best interests of C.A. Thus, we conclude that the juvenile court was correct in terminating the parental rights of B.T., and, accordingly, the juvenile court's judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED.