Opinion ID: 2035819
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: the state met its burden in proving walter would likely suffer harm if returned to martina

Text: As explained above, § 43-1505(6) requires a determination, supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that the continued custody of the child by the parent . . . is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. Martina argues that testimony by the State's expert failed to support, beyond a reasonable doubt, a finding that Walter's return to Martina is likely to cause Walter serious emotional or physical damage. At the disposition hearing in July 2004, Dr. Kevin Cahill, a clinical psychologist, testified about whether the return of Walter to Martina at that time would result in serious emotional or physical damage to Walter. The parties stipulated to Cahill's qualifications as an expert under ICWA. An exhibit at the second termination hearing included his July 2004 testimony. Cahill identified concerns that could affect Martina's ability to provide competent parenting for Walter. He stated that depression was an ongoing problem for Martina and that depressed parents are at a very high risk for neglecting their children. He also expressed concern because a January 2002 evaluation showed narcissistic traits. He explained that for a narcissistic individual, the needs of one's self always come first and everything else is secondary. He explained one of the primary minimal competencies an effective parent must have is the ability to relegate the importance of one's own needs to the primacy of the child's needs. Cahill further noted that Martina had been identified with an intermittent explosive disorder. He testified that an individual with an intermittent explosive disorder is likely to simply blow up in rage and anger at intervals, sometimes with very little provocation or in response to a provocation that seems completely out of proportion to the level of response. He explained that such tendencies conflict with another minimal competency for parentingthe ability to withstand the frustrations of parenting without becoming overly reactive. Cahill also testified at the first trial to terminate Martina's parental rights, and this testimony was included in an exhibit at the second trial. To prepare for the trial, Cahill reviewed a psychological evaluation from another psychologist dated December 2004. He stated the report increased his concerns about Martina's mental health. The other psychologist had made some additional diagnoses that had not previously been made. The other psychologist diagnosed Martina as dependent on methamphetamine, having an impulse control disorder, possible posttraumatic stress disorder, and a history of bipolar disorder. He also diagnosed her with antisocial personality disorder. Cahill explained that personality disorders are typically lifelong, even though the patient can mitigate the intensity of some symptoms. Later in his testimony, Cahill opined that Martina would not make enough progress to provide permanency for Walter. He also opined that the return of Walter to Martina would result in serious psychological and potentially physical damage. On cross-examination, Martina's counsel challenged Cahill's reliance on the December 2004 psychological report because the report contained a test that could be skewed for members of different ethnicities, including Native Americans. For instance, Native Americans typically score higher on the scale that measures antisocial personality disorder. Cahill acknowledged the report did not expressly state that the authoring psychologist used a correction scale or information regarding the Native American population to interpret the results of the test. Martina now contends that Cahill's testimony failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Walter's return to Martina would likely result in serious emotional or physical harm. She argues the testimony failed to support the beyond a reasonable doubt standard in part because of Cahill's reliance on the December 2004 report. She also claims the State failed to give Cahill evidence of her negative drug tests. She further claims the State failed to give Cahill a chemical dependency counselor's opinion that she had remained sober between May and August 2004. After considering Martina's contentions and reviewing the record, including Cahill's testimony, we conclude the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that returning Walter to Martina is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to Walter. Setting aside Martina's history of drug use, we note a likelihood that Martina's mental health issues could cause harm to Walter.