Opinion ID: 1691002
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: sufficiency of evidence: abandonment and neglect

Text: In part, § 43-292 authorizes termination of parental rights when (1) The parents have abandoned the juvenile for six months or more immediately prior to the filing of the petition; [and] (2) The parents have substantially and continuously or repeatedly neglected the juvenile and refused to give the juvenile necessary parental care and protection. In In re Interest of J.L.M. et al., 234 Neb. 381, 398, 451 N.W.2d 377, 388 (1990), we stated: Abandonment, for the purpose of § 43-292(1), is a parent's intentionally withholding from a child, without just cause or excuse, the parent's presence, care, love, protection, maintenance, and the opportunity for the display of parental affection for the child. See In re Interest of A.G.G., 230 Neb. 707, 433 N.W.2d 185 (1988). Further, we have stated that if a parent voluntarily, but unreasonably or unjustifiably, departs from the state of residence of the parent's child or children, such departure may constitute parental abandonment of the child or children.... See, In re Interest of A.G.G., supra ; In re Interest of R.A., 226 Neb. 160, 410 N.W.2d 110 (1987). Accord In re Interest of C.A., 235 Neb. 893, 457 N.W.2d 822 (1990). From our de novo review, we find that the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that the mother in the present case abandoned her children for a period of at least 6 months immediately before the State filed its termination petitions. See § 43-292(1). Also, we find that the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that the mother has substantially and continuously or repeatedly neglected her children and refused to give her children necessary parental care and protection. See § 43-292(2). The mother persistently ignored the vital interests of her young children and voluntarily, but unfortunately, left Nebraska and the lives of her children; for example, she elected to remain separated from her children in Nebraska while searching in Minnesota for her common-law husband's children. Contemporaneous with the filing of the termination petitions, the mother attempted to ameliorate a regrettable situation by staying in Nebraska, although intending to return to Minnesota; by obtaining employment; and by resuming some visitation with her children. As this court observed in In re Interest of J.M.D., 233 Neb. 540, 542-43, 446 N.W.2d 233, 235 (1989): The parental obligation is a positive duty which encompasses more than a financial obligation. It requires continuing interest in the child and a genuine effort to maintain communication and association with that child. In re Adoption of Simonton, 211 Neb. 777, 784, 320 N.W.2d 449, 454 (1982). 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 Z.D.D. and N.J.D., 230 Neb. 236, 241, 430 N.W.2d 552, 555 (1988). The mother's somewhat nomadic existence left little hope for parentally produced stability in the lives of her children, and her prolonged absence from Nebraska, coupled with her unwillingness to attend to the needs of her children, as demonstrated by her rejection of parenting classes and counseling sessions, demonstrates the mother's disregard for the basic needs of her young children. At a time in the lives of the children when they most needed their mother, there was only maternal itinerancy, not interest. Consequently, we conclude that the mother's fourth assignment of error lacks merit.