Court Opinion

ID: 9915980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-09 15:07:20.998504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:23:19.413443
License: Public Domain

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS

               MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL
                        (Memorandum Web Opinion)

                                 IN RE INTEREST OF ANALICIA K.

  NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION
 AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. § 2-102(E).

              IN RE INTEREST OF ANALICIA K., A CHILD UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE.

                               STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE,
                                               V.

                     REBECALICIA H., APPELLANT, AND BRYAN N., APPELLEE.

                             Filed January 9, 2024.    No. A-23-460.

       Appeal from the Separate Juvenile Court of Lancaster County: REGGIE L. RYDER, Judge.
Affirmed.
       Douglas L. Kerns, Deputy Lancaster County Public Defender, for appellant.
       Alisha Jimenez, Deputy Lancaster County Attorney, for appellee State of Nebraska.

       RIEDMANN, ARTERBURN, and WELCH, Judges.
       ARTERBURN, Judge.
                                        INTRODUCTION
        Rebecalicia H. appeals from an order of the separate juvenile court of Lancaster County
adjudicating her daughter, Analicia K., under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) (Reissue 2016). On
appeal, Rebecalicia argues that the State failed to adequately demonstrate that Analicia was at risk
of harm as a result of the faults or habits of Rebecalicia. Upon our de novo review of the record,
we affirm the order of the juvenile court.
                                        BACKGROUND
        Analicia was born in September 2013. Immediately after her birth, Analicia’s meconium
tested positive for methamphetamines and her umbilical cord blood tested positive for codeine. As
a result, Analicia was immediately removed from Rebecalicia’s care and custody. Tonya Chandler

                                               -1-
and Ralph Chandler became her foster parents. Analicia was returned to Rebecalicia’s care and
custody in 2014, when she was a year old.
         Shortly after Rebecalicia regained custody of Analicia, she reached out to Tonya to inquire
if Tonya would be willing to provide daily care for Analicia at her in-home daycare. Tonya agreed.
At times, the Chandlers also provided overnight childcare for Analicia when Rebecalicia needed
additional help. By the time Analicia was three or four years old and was starting preschool, she
resided primarily with the Chandlers and would have regular visits with Rebecalicia on the
weekends. At first, the Chandlers considered their arrangement with Rebecalicia as “co-parenting
a child [they] both loved.” The Chandlers considered Rebecalicia’s decision to leave Analicia with
them as positive.
         In 2019, when Analicia was almost six years old, she was diagnosed with Type I diabetes.
Her condition requires that she be carefully monitored at home and that she be seen by her doctors
on a regular basis. Because the Chandlers were never formally named as Analicia’s legal
guardians, they had to obtain signed delegation of authority documents from Rebecalicia every
few months in order to be able to take Analicia to her medical appointments. However, as time
passed, Rebecalicia’s contact with the Chandlers and with Analicia dwindled. As this
communication dwindled, the Chandlers began to struggle to obtain timely and complete
paperwork from Rebecalicia. In October 2022, Ralph reached out to the Department of Health and
Human Services (Department) to acquire assistance with obtaining the necessary paperwork from
Rebecalicia after being unable to do so on his own. The Department contacted Rebecalicia and
obtained the paperwork so that Analicia could attend a scheduled doctor’s appointment.
         In December 2022, shortly after being contacted by the Department, Rebecalicia went to
the Chandlers home to see Analicia for the first time in approximately 10 months. Rebecalicia
expressed a desire to take Analicia to a church service on Christmas Eve. While the Chandlers
planned on allowing this, the Department intervened and suspended any visits between Rebecalicia
and Analicia.
         On December 23, 2022, the State filed a juvenile petition and a motion for temporary care
and custody of Analicia. In its petition, the State alleged both that Analicia lacked proper parental
care by reason of the fault or habits of Rebecalicia and that Analicia was in a situation dangerous
to life or limb or injurious to her health or morals. Specifically, the State asserted that Rebecalicia
had relinquished her parental rights to an older sibling of Analicia’s after failing to correct the
conditions which required the juvenile court’s intervention; that Analicia had previously been
adjudicated as a child within § 43-247(3)(a) as a result of Rebecalicia’s use of controlled
substances when she was pregnant with Analicia; that Rebecalicia has failed to maintain consistent
contact with Analicia and her caregivers since November 2021; that Rebecalicia has failed to
provide Analicia with safe, stable, and sanitary housing; and that Analicia is at risk of harm.
         The juvenile court issued an ex parte order authorizing the Department to obtain temporary
custody of Analicia. At a protective custody hearing held five days later on December 28, 2022,
the juvenile court continued Analicia’s custody with the Department, continued her placement
with the Chandlers, and permitted Rebecalicia to have supervised visitation. On January 26, 2023,
another hearing was held during which Rebecalicia denied the allegations in the petition. A formal
adjudication hearing was scheduled for March 13.

                                                 -2-
         On March 13, 2023, the adjudication hearing began. The State called two witnesses to
testify: Tonya Chandler and Rebecca Bryant, the Department caseworker assigned to the case.
Tonya testified in conformity with the events as described above. In addition, she testified more
specifically as to her contact with Rebecalicia over the years and about Analicia’s current
circumstances.
         Tonya testified that initially when Analicia began living with them, she would have contact
with Rebecalicia often. Tonya was aware of where Rebecalicia was residing and had her telephone
number. In turn, Rebecalicia had Tonya’s telephone number. The two would send text messages
and would speak on the telephone. In addition, Tonya would send Rebecalicia pictures of Analicia.
However, in the past few years, Tonya’s contact with Rebecalicia became more irregular. Tonya
testified that often, Rebecalicia would not communicate with the Chandlers or check on Analicia
even on a monthly basis. In fact, Rebecalicia has reached out to Tonya “less than 10 times” in the
past few years. Rebecalicia has never provided direct financial support for Analicia since she began
residing with the Chandlers. However, the Chandlers have provided financial assistance to
Rebecalicia in times of financial need.
         Tonya testified that despite Rebecalicia’s lack of contact with them, she and Ralph always
employed an “open door policy” for Rebecalicia at their home. They never refused any of
Rebecalicia’s requests to see Analicia. However, prior to December 2022, Rebecalicia had not
visited with Analicia in over 6 months. In fact, since 2021, Rebecalicia has only visited with
Analicia on four or five occasions. Oftentimes, a visit would be scheduled, but Rebecalicia would
not attend. Rebecalicia failed to visit Analicia on her birthday in September 2022. Tonya described
how Analicia sat in front of the window and cried for Rebecalicia on her birthday. On Analicia’s
birthday in 2021, Rebecalicia took Analicia to the grocery store for a few minutes, but did not
otherwise celebrate with her.
         During her testimony, Tonya explained the detrimental effect that Rebecalicia’s absence
from Analicia’s life has had on Analicia’s mental health. In 2019 or 2020, Analicia told Tonya that
she believes that Rebecalicia hates her because she no longer comes to visit. When Tonya spoke
to Rebecalicia about this, Rebecalicia acknowledged that she needed to do better. More recently,
Analicia has exhibited “horrific” behavioral problems, including being physically aggressive with
Tonya. Tonya attributes this behavior, in part, to Analicia’s unstable relationship with Rebecalicia.
Analicia does attend therapy, but Rebecalicia has never participated in this therapy despite Tonya’s
repeated requests for her to do so. Ultimately, Tonya testified that Analicia does much better when
she knows when she will see Rebecalicia and Rebecalicia follows through with scheduled visits.
         Tonya did acknowledge that Rebecalicia has struggled with her own mental health in the
last year, after both her brother and her husband died. However, Tonya indicated that Rebecalicia’s
regular contact with Analicia ended “way before” these traumatic incidents.
         Tonya described Analicia’s current medical conditions during her testimony. As mentioned
above, Analicia is a Type I diabetic who is insulin dependent. She was diagnosed in 2019 after
Tonya urged Rebecalicia to take her to the doctor. Analicia was admitted to the hospital for an
8-day period, during which Rebecalicia visited one time when Analicia was sleeping. Tonya
testified that managing Analicia’s diabetes has become a “full-time job” for Ralph. Both Tonya
and Ralph underwent training to utilize necessary medical devices for Analicia’s diabetes.

                                                -3-
Rebecalicia did not complete this training, only appearing for 15 minutes and then abruptly
leaving.
        In addition to diabetes, Analicia has also been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and reactive attachment disorder.
Analicia is prescribed multiple medications for these conditions.
        Bryant also testified on the first day of the adjudication hearing. She was assigned as the
Department caseworker for Analicia in January 2023. Bryant testified that since January,
Rebecalicia has not completed necessary training to manage Analicia’s diabetes and her medical
devices. Rebecalicia has been attending visits with Analicia. These visits are occurring at
Rebecalicia’s home, which Bryant indicated was “overall,” not an appropriate space for Analicia
to return to. Specifically, while the main floor of the home is relatively appropriate, Bryant has not
been able to inspect the remainder of the home because there are always padlocks leading to the
upstairs and the downstairs areas. Rebecalicia reported that these areas are off limits because of
damaged support beams. Additionally, the back yard and front yard are cluttered with
miscellaneous items. Rebecalicia identified one of the two bedrooms as belonging to Analicia.
However, the room contained shot glasses and cigarette rollers.
        The adjudication hearing continued on April 18, 2023. On this date, the State called
Caroline Cote, an initial assessment worker employed by the Department to testify. Cote testified
that she was first contacted by the Chandlers in October 2022 as a result of behaviors Analicia was
displaying at school and as a result of the Chandlers needing a new delegation of authority for
Analicia’s medical appointments but being unable to reach Rebecalicia. During her testimony,
Cote noted that this was not the first time the Department had to become involved with obtaining
a delegation of authority from Rebecalicia for the Chandlers. In 2021, the Department became
involved after the Chandlers reported that Rebecalicia was “unavailable” to sign needed consents.
        The Department had also been involved with Rebecalicia and her older child in 2011. Such
proceedings were initiated as a result of Rebecalicia’s educational neglect, but later additional
allegations of domestic violence in the home were included. In 2013, Analicia was added to the
juvenile court proceedings as a result of testing positive for controlled substances at the time of
her birth.
        In October 2022, Cote went to Rebecalicia’s home and found her outside. Cote testified
that Rebecalicia was cooperative and conversational. She agreed to sign a delegation of authority
to continue to allow the Chandlers to care for Analicia. Cote indicated that Rebecalicia
acknowledged that the Chandlers had been caring for Analicia for some time:
        [Rebecalicia] knew it was in [Analicia’s] best interest to be living with [the Chandlers]
        considering her current situation. [Rebecalicia] advised me that she had been working night
        shift and she needed Analicia to have structure. She knew that [the Chandlers] had been
        caring for her well and knew her medical needs and school needs and that it was just more
        of a structured environment for her to be with them.

After Cote’s conversation with Rebecalicia, she learned that Rebecalicia was not actually
employed and had not been employed for some time. Cote also learned that Rebecalicia had a
history of facing prosecutions related to her involvement with controlled substances, most recently

                                                -4-
in 2021. Cote was unable to complete an assessment of the inside of Rebecalicia’s home to
determine whether it was an appropriate environment.
       Ultimately, the Department initiated formal proceedings in the juvenile court when
Rebecalicia expressed a desire to see Analicia over the Christmas holiday in 2022. The
Department’s risk assessment revealed a high risk concerning unsupervised contact between
Rebecalicia and Analicia. Cote testified that the Department’s specific concerns included
Rebecalicia’s failure to timely provide the Chandlers with necessary authority to care for
Analicia’s medical needs; Rebecalicia’s failure to obtain training to learn how to care for
Analicia’s diabetes; Rebecalicia’s recent drug related criminal history; Rebecalicia’s inability to
provide a safe and stable environment for Analicia; and Rebecalicia’s failure to follow through
with promises she made to Analicia. Cote further explained:
                Based on the conversations that I’ve had with [Analicia’s] therapist, and his
       interpretation of that relationship between [Rebecalicia and Analicia], it was not a good
       idea for her to just return to [Rebecalicia’s] care after so much time that she has been out
       of that environment. And for us to not have the ability to successfully assess [Rebecalicia’s]
       home, whether we were inside the house or not, like, we just didn’t have the evidence to
       suggest that she was a proper caregiver for [Analicia] at the time. And let alone the
       detrimental piece for [Analicia’s] mental health and [Rebecalicia’s] absence in [Analicia’s]
       life that contributed to all of that. And just everything that contributed to where she’s at
       and why she’s with the Chandlers.
                Even [Rebecalicia] to say herself that she didn’t have the structure that Analicia
       needed and the reason why she let her stay with the Chandlers for so long and signed
       delegation of parental rights. For her to admit that herself, that it was a better environment
       for [Analicia], you know, speaks a lot to us. And we just – we didn’t believe that
       [Rebecalicia] was ready to have [Analicia] back in her care without the proper training of
       her diabetic medical needs. Therapeutically, with all of [Analicia’s] psychological
       diagnoses, and the overall absence of [Rebecalicia] in her life, inconsistency.

         After Cote’s testimony, the State rested and Rebecalicia called Ralph to testify. Ralph
testified in conformity with Tonya’s testimony as detailed above. He indicated that they have had
very little contact with Rebecalicia since 2020. Analicia saw Rebecalicia on a few occasions in
2020, once in early December 2021, and once in February 2022. The February 2022 visit occurred
after Analicia became physically violent and punched Tonya in the face. The Chandlers told
Rebecalicia that they were struggling and she agreed to temporarily take Analicia to her home.
However, she quickly returned Analicia to the Chandlers’ home because her home did not have
electricity.
         Ralph detailed that when Rebecalicia came to their home in December 2022 to ask to see
Analicia over the Christmas holiday, it was the first time she had seen Analicia in 10 months. And,
although she promised to telephone Analicia later that night, she did not follow through with this
promise. Ralph also testified that Rebecalicia does not attend Analicia’s many doctor’s
appointments, therapy sessions, or educational meetings at her school. In addition, she has not
provided any financial assistance for Analicia’s care. Ralph stated that he and Tonya have a desire

                                                -5-
to facilitate Analicia’s relationship with Rebecalicia. They have “always made [Analicia] available
to [Rebecalicia].”
         During his testimony, Ralph explained that he reached out to the Department in October
2022 at the direction of Analicia’s therapist. He felt that he and Tonya had done everything they
could to make contact with Rebecalicia, but an updated delegation of authority form was two or
three months overdue and Analicia had an upcoming appointment for her diabetes. They had tried
reaching out to Rebecalicia’s mother, Consuelo Escamilla-Gross, but learned that Rebecalicia was
no longer in contact with her either.
         The adjudication hearing resumed on May 17, 2023. At that time, Consuelo testified on
Rebecalicia’s behalf. Contrary to Ralph’s testimony, Consuelo testified that during the period
between November 2021 and December 2022, she always knew how to contact Rebecalicia. She
also testified that while she had an ongoing relationship with Analicia while she was in the
Chandlers’ care, that she had not had any physical contact with Analicia since prior to November
2021.
         Rebecalicia testified on her own behalf. She explained that after she regained custody of
Analicia when she was a baby, she began using the Chandlers as daycare providers while she was
working and going to school. Rebecalicia indicated that the Chandlers were happy to help her.
Then, when Analicia started preschool, she began living with the Chandlers during the week and
would stay with Rebecalicia on weekends and during school breaks. Rebecalicia believed this
routine assisted with Analicia’s behavioral problems.
         When Analicia was diagnosed with diabetes, Rebecalicia was the one who took her to the
emergency room. However, Rebecalicia left as soon as the Chandlers arrived because she had to
go help take care of her adult son. When she would call to check on Analicia while she was in the
hospital, the Chandlers would tell her everything was fine.
         In March 2020, Rebecalicia’s brother died. Her husband then died the day after their
wedding in July. Rebecalicia testified that after July, she was simply too grief stricken to care for
Analicia on a regular basis. She later indicated that while she “could” have cared for Analicia, she
thought it best for Analicia to be with the Chandlers who could fully focus their attention on her.
Rebecalicia stopped seeing Analicia on the weekends. Initially, she stayed in contact with the
Chandlers over the telephone, but admitted that by 2021, this contact “slowed down.” However,
Rebecalicia blamed the diminished contact on the Chandlers. She testified that she tried contacting
them, but was never able to “get through.” She also testified that she still saw Analicia sometimes,
citing the incident where she briefly took Analicia to her home after Analicia hit Tonya.
Rebecalicia admitted that she had not seen Analicia in the 4 or 5 months prior to the State filing
its petition in December 2022, but believed that she had made efforts to do so.
         Rebecalicia stated that she always provided necessary consent forms to the Chandlers when
asked. She explained that the most recent consent form was late because her printer was broken.
         In 2021, Rebecalicia bought a home in Lincoln. She initially had a roommate, but is now
living there alone. She admitted that the outdoor area of the home is “messy” and that she has been
cited by the city for having a dirty yard “numerous times.” In addition, Rebecalicia explained that
there were areas of her home that were locked because such areas were only used for storage. At
the time of trial, she was facing a citation from the city for an unsanitary house.

                                                -6-
         Rebecalicia denied using controlled substances despite her recent charges. She testified
that her depression symptoms have diminished and that in December 2022 she was ready to resume
contact with and care of Analicia because she missed her. Analicia has never been physical with
Rebecalicia and Rebecalicia believes that she has the ability to control Analicia’s behaviors. She
testified that as a former certified medical assistant and phlebotomist, she is aware of Analicia’s
needs as a diabetic and has sufficient medical training to care for her.
         At the close of the evidence on May 17, 2023, the juvenile court orally stated its finding
that the allegations in the petition were true by a preponderance of the evidence. The court
explained:
         And it’s very clear to the Court that [Rebecalicia does] love [Analicia] greatly. But [she]
         need[s] some assistance to be at a point where [she] can parent [Analicia] full time. And
         that’s what this case is all about. This isn’t a case about saying we’re taking – this is not a
         termination proceeding. This is an issue of: Are these allegations true? Are they more likely
         true than not? And in the Court’s view, they are.

After the hearing, the court entered an order memorializing its finding that “the allegations in
Count 1 of the Petition are true and these findings are being made by the preponderance of the
evidence.”
        This appeal followed.
                                    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
       On appeal, Rebecalicia asserts that the juvenile court abused its discretion in finding that
Analicia came within the meaning of § 43-247(3)(a).
                                     STANDARD OF REVIEW
        Juvenile cases are reviewed de novo on the record, and an appellate court is required to
reach a conclusion independent of the juvenile court’s findings; however, when the evidence is in
conflict, an appellate court may consider and give weight to the fact that the trial court observed
the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts over the other. In re Interest of Prince R., 308
Neb. 415, 954 N.W.2d 294 (2021).
                                             ANALYSIS
        Before addressing Rebecalicia’s arguments on appeal, we briefly review the standards
governing the adjudication phase of a juvenile court proceeding. The purpose of the adjudication
phase is to protect the interests of the child. In re Interest of Justine J. et al., 286 Neb. 250, 835
N.W.2d 674 (2013). To obtain jurisdiction over a juvenile at the adjudication stage, the court’s
only concern is whether the conditions in which the juvenile presently finds himself or herself fit
within the asserted subsection of § 43-247. In re Interest of Justine J. et al., supra.
        Section 43-247(3)(a) sets forth numerous grounds by which the juvenile court could take
jurisdiction over a juvenile. See In re Interest of Jeremy U. et al., 304 Neb. 734, 936 N.W.2d 733
(2020). The grounds relevant to this case are that the juvenile “lacks proper parental care by reason
of the fault or habits of his or her parent, guardian, or custodian” and that the juvenile is “in a

                                                 -7-
situation . . . dangerous to life or limb or injurious to the health or morals of such juvenile.” See
§ 43-247(3)(a).
        As to the ground alleging that the juvenile lacks proper parental care, the Nebraska
Supreme Court has previously explained, “proper parental care” includes “providing a home,
support, subsistence, education, and other care necessary for the health, morals, and well-being of
the child. . . . It commands that the child not be placed in situations dangerous to life or limb, and
not be permitted to engage in activities injurious to his health or morals.” In re Interest of Metteer,
203 Neb. 515, 520, 279 N.W.2d 374, 377 (1979). See also In re Interest of Jeremy U. et al., supra.
        In considering whether a juvenile lacks proper parental care, Nebraska Supreme Court case
law has incorporated a risk of harm component. In re Interest of Jeremy U. et al., supra. To show
that a juvenile lacks proper parental care, the State is not required to prove that the child has
actually suffered physical harm, but the State must establish that, without intervention, there is a
definite risk of future harm. See In re Interest of Kane L. & Carter L., 299 Neb. 834, 910 N.W.2d
789 (2018).
        At the adjudication stage, in order for a juvenile court to assume jurisdiction of minor
children under § 43-247(3)(a), the State must prove the allegations of the petition by a
preponderance of the evidence. In re Interest of Heather R. et al., 269 Neb. 653, 694 N.W.2d 659
(2005). A preponderance of the evidence is the equivalent of the greater weight of the evidence,
which means evidence sufficient to make a claim more likely true than not true. See In re Interest
of Vladimir G., 306 Neb. 127, 944 N.W.2d 309 (2020). Rebecalicia argues on appeal that the State
failed to carry its burden to show that Analicia lacked proper parental care by reason of her faults
or habits and that, without intervention, Analicia faced a definite risk of future harm.
        Upon our de novo review of the record, we find that the State sufficiently demonstrated
that the allegations in the petition were true. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the juvenile court
adjudicating Analicia as a child within the meaning of § 43-247(3)(a). Specifically, we find that
the State presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Rebecalicia failed to maintain
consistent contact with Analicia and her caregivers and that such actions placed Analicia at risk
for harm.
        In her brief on appeal, Rebecalicia argues that the evidence presented at the adjudication
hearing revealed that she had “ensured that her daughter Analicia was properly cared for, if in an
untraditional way.” Brief for appellant at 19. Essentially, Rebecalicia asserts that by placing
Analicia in the Chandlers’ care, she was making a positive parenting decision to give Analicia a
stable home life. Contrary to Rebecalicia’s assertions on appeal, however, the evidence presented
at the adjudication hearing revealed that while Rebecalicia’s initial decision to place Analicia with
the Chandlers was positive, her failure to provide the Chandlers with the capability and power to
provide for all of Analicia’s needs resulted in Analicia being placed at risk for harm. Moreover,
Rebecalicia’s decision to absent herself from Analicia’s life for lengthy periods of time negatively
affected Analicia’s mental health. When Rebecalicia learned of the difficulties Analicia was
suffering due to her absence, Rebecalicia did not make any changes for Analicia’s benefit.
Accordingly, we do not agree with Rebecalicia’s assertion that her decision to place Analicia with
the Chandlers negated her parental responsibility for Analicia.
        In their testimonies at the adjudication hearing, Tonya and Ralph specifically described the
diminishing contact they and Analicia have had with Rebecalicia since approximately 2020. And,

                                                 -8-
although Rebecalicia blamed some of the lack of communication on the Chandlers, she did not
disagree that their level of communication had diminished significantly. In 2020 Rebecalicia
stopped having visits with Analicia every weekend, and began seeing her only a couple of times
per year. Rebecalicia also stopped telephoning the Chandlers or immediately responding when the
Chandlers reached out to her.
        Rebecalicia’s lack of communication became particularly problematic after Analicia was
diagnosed with diabetes and had to attend regular doctor’s appointments. Evidence presented at
the adjudication hearing revealed that the Chandlers did not have a legal guardianship over
Analicia and, as a result, had to obtain periodic delegation of authority forms from Rebecalicia to
be able to take Analicia to her medical appointments. Notably, Rebecalicia did not attend a
majority of Analicia’s medical appointments. On two occasions in the past few years, the
Chandlers were unable to obtain the necessary documentation from Rebecalicia in a timely
manner. First, in 2021, the Chandlers had to seek the assistance of the Department to obtain an
updated delegation of authority form from Rebecalicia because she was “unavailable” to them. In
October 2022, the Department again had to become involved in obtaining a delegation of authority
form from Rebecalicia. Ralph indicated that he made great efforts to obtain the form himself prior
to reaching out to the Department.
        While the evidence indicated that Analicia did not ever miss a doctor’s appointment due to
Rebecalicia’s failure to timely sign updated delegation of authority forms, there was evidence that
Rebecalicia’s actions resulted in a risk of harm to Analicia. Analicia suffered from a serious
medical condition which required regular doctor’s visits and medication management. The
Chandlers needed updated delegation of authority forms in order to obtain necessary medical care
for Analicia. When Rebecalicia failed to timely provide the forms, Analicia was at risk of not
receiving routine or emergency care.
        Evidence presented at the adjudication hearing also demonstrated that Rebecalicia’s
absence from Analicia’s life had caused or at minimum contributed to Analicia suffering from
mental health issues and extreme behavioral problems. Tonya testified that around the time that
Rebecalicia discontinued her regular weekend visits with Analicia, Analicia expressed her belief
that Rebecalicia must hate her. Tonya informed Rebecalicia of Analicia’s comment, and
Rebecalicia acknowledged that she needed to do better as a parent. However, she never followed
through on this. Rebecalicia failed to visit Analicia regularly, even failing to see her on her most
recent birthday. Tonya described Analicia waiting for her mother by the window for a visit which
never materialized. And, in December 2022 when Rebecalicia went to the Chandlers’ home to ask
whether Analicia could attend a religious service with her, Rebecalicia promised she would call
Analicia later that evening. Rebecalicia did not call as promised. Rebecalicia’s actions consistently
leave Analicia feeling angry, hurt, and abandoned.
        By the time of the adjudication hearing, Analicia was experiencing “horrific” behavioral
problems, including perpetrating violence against Tonya and acting out physically at school. Both
Tonya and Ralph opined that Analicia’s behaviors were the result of her unstable and sporadic
relationship with Rebecalicia. The Chandlers were exploring the possibility of placing Analicia in
a group home to help control her behaviors. Rebecalicia’s failure to keep in regular contact with
Analicia has caused harm to Analicia’s mental health. Rebecalicia knew of the harm she was
causing, but failed to make any changes for the benefit of Analicia.

                                                -9-
         Upon our de novo review, we also find that Rebecalicia has failed to take appropriate steps
to put herself in a position to independently care for Analicia, including, obtaining necessary
training on Analicia’s medical devices; learning about Analicia’s behavioral problems both at
home and at school; and maintaining a safe home environment.
         Rebecalicia has not been trained on Analicia’s diabetic medical devices. Tonya testified
that while she and Ralph both attended the training sessions for these devices immediately after
Analicia’s diabetes diagnosis, Rebecalicia attended one session for only 15 minutes, then left. Both
Tonya and Ralph described the amount of time and effort that goes into managing Analicia’s
devices and medications. Tonya testified that Ralph treats Analicia’s medical care like a “full-time
job.” And, while Rebecalicia testified to her belief that she could easily manage Analicia’s
condition due to her past medical training, Tonya testified that Analicia’s doctor indicated that
even he would need training on Analicia’s medical devices and specific care. Further, Bryant
testified that even after the initiation of the juvenile court case, Rebecalicia has failed to complete
the necessary training. Rebecalicia’s failure to complete the training in a timely manner certainly
presents a risk of harm to Analicia. Rebecalicia cannot independently care for Analicia and her
diabetic condition without such training.
         Rebecalicia has also demonstrated a lack of knowledge and insight about Analicia’s
behavioral problems both at home and at school. Despite being invited to do so, she has not
attended any of Analicia’s therapy appointments. She has not attended any meetings with
Analicia’s school, having given the Chandlers educational rights to handle such meetings.
Moreover, during Rebecalicia’s testimony, she seemed to minimize Analicia’s recent behavioral
problems, indicating that Analicia has never been violent with her and that she is able to control
Analicia’s behavior. Essentially, the evidence presented at the hearing revealed that Rebecalicia
does not have an appreciation of Analicia’s current physical, mental health, or educational needs.
Such lack of knowledge presents a serious risk of harm not only to Analicia, but also to others.
         Finally, the evidence at the hearing indicated that Rebecalicia does not currently have an
appropriate home for Analicia to return to. Such evidence indicated that the outside of
Rebecalicia’s home is cluttered and dangerous to the extent that she has been repeatedly cited by
the city for the home’s unsanitary condition. The majority of the inside of Rebecalicia’s home has
not been adequately examined, as she keeps the upstairs and downstairs padlocked. When asked
about these areas, Rebecalicia has given inconsistent answers, telling Bryant about a damaged
support beam and telling the court during her testimony that such areas are only used for storage.
The main living area of Rebecalicia’s home was determined to be inappropriate for Analicia, as
the bedroom identified as Analicia’s contained drug and alcohol paraphernalia. Other evidence
presented at the hearing indicated that Rebecalicia may have used controlled substances recently,
given her 2021 charge. This evidence is particularly concerning given that the reason Analicia was
removed from Rebecalicia’s care when she was a newborn was Rebecalicia’s use of controlled
substances during her pregnancy. As such, any recurrent involvement with controlled substances
by Rebecalicia raises concerns about an ongoing struggle with drug use.
         We also note that Rebecalicia has previously had her parental rights to her older child
terminated. This fact does provide both the juvenile court and this court with some insight into
Rebecalicia’s history as a parent. Her past struggles combined with her present actions provide a
more complete picture of Rebecalicia’s ability to independently care for Analicia.

                                                - 10 -
        In sum, the evidence presented by the State at the adjudication hearing sufficiently
demonstrates that Analicia is at a definite risk of harm due to the faults or habits of Rebecalicia.
While Rebecalicia found appropriate and loving caregivers for Analicia, she failed to maintain
contact with those caregivers and failed to equip them to consistently monitor Analicia’s serious
medical condition. Moreover, Rebecalicia failed to maintain consistent contact with Analicia and
has, as a result, had a negative impact on Analicia’s mental health. Rebecalicia is not at this time
ready to independently care for Analicia. She does not have adequate training on managing
Analicia’s diabetes, she is not fully aware of Analicia’s mental health needs, and she does not have
safe and stable housing. Given all of these factors, we do not find that the juvenile court erred in
adjudicating Analicia as a child within the meaning of § 43-247(3)(a).
                                         CONCLUSION
      We affirm the order of the juvenile court adjudicating Analicia as a child within the
meaning of § 43-247(3)(a).
                                                                                 AFFIRMED.

                                               - 11 -