Opinion ID: 1996139
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Constitutional Objection.

Text: On appeal, Samuel claims that compliance with various plan provisions would require that he admit to sexual contact with Phyllisa and that such terms would violate his right to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Samuel suggests on appeal that Phyllisa was continued in out-of-home placement due, in part, to Samuel's refusal to admit to sexual contact with Phyllisa. In this regard, we note that the record shows that the juvenile court's orders with regard to the reunification plan to obtain meaningful therapy employed the language of In re Interest of Clifford M. et al., 6 Neb.App. 754, 577 N.W.2d 547 (1998), and that the termination order of February 21, 2002, states that the parents still have not sufficiently progressed rehabilitatively. The record provided on appeal does not reflect that Samuel raised his constitutional objection in the proceedings before the juvenile court. Generally, an appellate court will not consider a constitutional question on appeal that was not raised and properly presented for disposition by the trial court. In re Interest of Lisa W. & Samantha W., supra ; In re Interest of Rachael M. & Sherry M., 258 Neb. 250, 603 N.W.2d 10 (1999). This is because a lower court cannot commit error in resolving an issue never presented and submitted to it for disposition. In re Interest of Lisa W. & Samantha W., supra . We have also stated that [f]ailure to make a timely objection waives the right to assert prejudicial error on appeal. In re Interest of Kassara M., 258 Neb. 90, 94, 601 N.W.2d 917, 922 (1999). Accordingly, we do not address Samuel's constitutional objection presented for the first time on appeal concerning his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Termination of Parental Rights Under § 43-292(7). The juvenile court found that all three of the grounds for termination alleged in the State's motion, § 43-292(2), (6), and (7), were proved by the State. In order to terminate parental rights, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that one of the statutory grounds enumerated in § 43-292 exists and that termination is in the child's best interests. In re Interest of DeWayne G. & Devon G., 263 Neb. 43, 638 N.W.2d 510 (2002); In re Interest of Clifford M. et al., 261 Neb. 862, 626 N.W.2d 549 (2001). Our de novo review of the record shows that termination of Samuel's parental rights was sufficiently demonstrated pursuant to § 43-292(7), and we affirm on the basis of § 43-292(7). Accordingly, we need not consider Samuel's assigned errors relating to the sufficiency of evidence under other statutory provisions identified by the juvenile court as grounds for termination of his parental rights. See, In re Interest of DeWayne G. & Devon G., supra ; In re Interest of Clifford M. et al., supra; In re Interest of Lisa W. & Samantha W., 258 Neb. 914, 606 N.W.2d 804 (2000). Section 43-292(7) requires that the child in question be in out-of-home placement for 15 or more of the most recent 22 months to support termination based on § 43-292(7). The record reflects that at the time of the termination hearing, Phyllisa had been in continuous foster care for approximately 40 months. The only remaining issue is whether termination of Samuel's parental rights is in Phyllisa's best interests. The record amply demonstrates that termination of Samuel's parental rights is in Phyllisa's best interests. On February 26, 1999, the juvenile court determined that Phyllisa was a child within the meaning of § 43-247(3)(a) based on the court's factual findings that Phyllisa had disclosed that she was subjected to inappropriate sexual contact by Samuel and that Samuel still lived in the home. As a result of these findings, the juvenile court determined that Phyllisa was at risk, adjudicated Phyllisa, and ordered that Phyllisa should remain in the care and custody of DHHS. An adjudication order is a final, appealable order. See In re Interest of Joshua M. et al., 251 Neb. 614, 558 N.W.2d 548 (1997). The record reflects that Samuel did not appeal the juvenile court's adjudication order indicating that Phyllisa was a child at risk due to the fact Phyllisa had claimed that Samuel had subjected her to inappropriate sexual contact and that Samuel lived in the home. In the absence of a direct appeal from an adjudication order, a parent may not question the existence of facts upon which the juvenile court asserted jurisdiction. In re Interest of Brook P. et al., 10 Neb.App. 577, 634 N.W.2d 290 (2001). At the February 19, 2002, termination hearing, the State called six witnesses to testify: Tina Flowers, Phyllisa's therapist; Cheryl Felix, Phyllis' therapist; Kathie McDaniel, Samuel's therapist; Letitia Kopp, Phyllisa's foster care specialist; and Nicole Rogert and Jennifer Bivens, DHHS child protection and safety workers assigned to Phyllisa's case. The State also introduced into evidence exhibit 30, which was composed of certified copies of the petitions and orders in the case. Phyllis testified on her own behalf. Samuel did not testify or call any witnesses or introduce any exhibits into evidence. During the termination hearing, Flowers testified as to Phyllisa's conduct that supported Phyllisa's claim that she had been subjected to inappropriate sexual contact by Samuel, including that Phyllisa wet her bed nightly, had ongoing nightmares regarding sucking men's penises [and] having sexual relations with men, and masturbated publicly. Flowers testified that she could not explain this conduct as signifying anything other than that Phyllisa had been sexually molested. Although Flowers testified that Phyllisa had subsequently recanted her earlier statement that she had been subjected to inappropriate sexual contact by Samuel, Flowers responded [y]es when asked if it was normal for children who initially tell the truth regarding allegations of sexual molestation to later recant those statements. According to Flowers, Phyllisa's recantation was normal especially since it's a parental figure [and] she wants to go home. On appeal, Samuel disputes that the inappropriate contact occurred. The record shows that Samuel has not participated in meaningful therapy and rehabilitation relating to the molestation issue. The record further reflects that Samuel remains in the family home. Finally, the record reflects that Kopp testified that it would not be in Phyllisa's best interests to be returned to her family home and that Flowers and Bivens both testified that termination of Samuel's parental rights was in Phyllisa's best interests. We have stated that children cannot, and should not, be suspended in foster care or be made to await uncertain parental maturity. In re Interest of DeWayne G. & Devon G., 263 Neb. 43, 638 N.W.2d 510 (2002); In re Interest of Joshua M. et al., 251 Neb. 614, 558 N.W.2d 548 (1997). Based upon the evidence, we conclude that the record clearly and convincingly shows that at the time of the termination hearing, Phyllisa had been in out-of-home placement for 15 or more of the most recent 22 months and that termination of Samuel's parental rights was in Phyllisa's best interests. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court's order terminating Samuel's parental rights as to Phyllisa pursuant to § 43-292(7).