Court Opinion

ID: 9516813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:53:01.590698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:20.800914
License: Public Domain

Caporale, J.,
dissenting.
I must dissent, not only because I have procedural concerns, but because in my view the majority’s substantive disposition is legally incorrect.
I first question whether the guardian ad litem appointed for a mentally ill or deficient parent, as required by the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292 (Reissue 1984), can properly be the same individual as the one serving in the capacity of legal counsel to the parent. In Orr v. Knowles, 215 Neb. 49, 337 N.W.2d 699 (1983), we, in the context of considering the functions of a guardian ad litem for a minor seeking an abortion, vis-a-vis the functions of one serving as legal counsel to the minor, held that the duties of a guardian ad litem are not coextensive with those of legal counsel. The Orr opinion explained that it is not an attorney’s role, when acting as legal counsel, to independently determine what is in his or her client’s best interests but, rather, to act in accordance with the client’s wishes, provided those wishes are within an attorney’s ethical obligations; a guardian ad litem, on the other hand, may determine his or her ward’s best interests without reference to the ward’swishes.
Just as an independent investigation might reveal a minor’s wish to have an abortion not to be in her best interests, so, too, might an independent investigation reveal a mentally ill or deficient parent’s wish to preserve his or her status as a parent not to be in his or her best interests. The question of such a parent’s best interests is different than what is in the best interests of his or her child, the only interest which the juvenile court may adjudicate.
There may be some, perhaps many, who would opine that providing a mentally ill or deficient parent with a guardian ad litem as well as a separate attorney is unnecessary and a needless expenditure of funds, public or otherwise. The fact remains, however, that the question is one of public policy which the Legislature and our law seem to have decided. I am not unmindful that, ordinarily, when a guardian ad litem is to be appointed for a juvenile under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-272 *894(Reissue 1984), the guardian is to be an attorney and that such appointee is to act as his or her own legal counsel, as well as that of the juvenile. Even that statute recognizes, however, that a particular case may present special circumstances requiring the guardian ad litem or the juvenile, or both, to have separate counsel. Nor does Chalupa v. Chalupa, 220 Neb. 704, 371 N.W.2d 706 (1985), which holds that in the usual dissolution case adequate legal representation of the competing interests of the parties makes unnecessary the extra expense and delay of appointing separate counsel to represent the interests of the children, answer the question which concerns me. While Chalupa seems to assume that legal counsel and a guardian ad litem perform the same function, it neither analyzes the issue nor refers to the earlier holding in Orr v. Knowles, supra.
Having pointed out the confusion that surrounds the responsibilities, obligations, and duties of attorneys who permit themselves to be put in the position of attempting to serve potentially conflicting interests as both legal counsel and guardians ad litem, a confusion which may arise from the effort to turn courts of law into social services agencies, I turn my attention to the substantive issues presented by this case and leave the procedural concerns for resolution in a case which squarely presents and briefs the procedural problem.
The subject parents are both 38 years old. A.M.K. was born on June 10,1985. Sadly, the child suffers from “developmental delays, and spasticity.” She also exhibits signs of microcephaly (an abnormal smallness of the head, usually associated with mental retardation), seizure disorders, and cerebral palsy. In the opinion of Dr. William Collamer, a psychologist who served as the State’s expert witness in the juvenile court, the child has some “physical problems [and] . . . developmental delays in terms of cognitive skills and intellectual functions.” Nevertheless, the child generally presents the appearance of a healthy, attractive, and happy baby.
The father has been described as “mildly mentally retarded.” Yet, he has found seasonal or periodic employment as a farm laborer. The mother has a speech impediment and has been described as “between the dull normal to borderline range of intellectual functioning,” having scored between 81 and 85 in *895an intelligence test. Collamer testified that persons with intelligence quotient test scores in the range of 80 to 90 would be considered “dull normal.” In the population as a whole, one would “expect one half of the scores to be above 100, and one half of the scores to be below 100.” The meaning of these numbers is further clarified by Collamer5s testimony that “probably” 76 percent of the population falls in the 85 to 115 range of scores and his admission that the ability to be a parent cannot be determined from “an intelligence score, you have to look at all of the capabilities.”
The father has an academic achievement comparable to that of the typical fourth grade student, while the mother has an academic achievement comparable to that of the typical eighth grade student. The record clearly discloses that the mother has adequate academic ability to write thoughtful and reasonably well-written letters protesting her forced separation from her daughter.
Apparently owing to the child’s developmental difficulties, she came to the attention of this state’s social services providers on the day after her birth. At that time, specialists began evaluating and treating the child, and the parents were furnished with a number of services. The parents have taken parenting classes, have participated in home-based family therapy, have undergone psychological evaluations, and have been exposed to a variety of family support workers, including some who worked with the parents in their home.
According to David Nachtigal, a physical therapist who has worked with the child since her early days, correcting her disabilities will require ongoing physical therapy into adulthood. Among other things, the child must presently be positioned and maneuvered so that she may learn to use her hands and legs. The nature of the therapy required will change at frequent, perhaps weekly, intervals as the child matures.
Nachtigal spent only two 1-hour sessions with the parents to teach them what had to be done. Janice Sanchez, a state protective services caseworker responsible for the child’s case, testified she did not know why the parents did not spend more time in the therapy sessions with their daughter. The mother testified to the effect that neither she nor the father realized that *896they were invited to attend further sessions. On both days that the parents met with Nachtigal, the father performed exercises with his daughter under Nachtigal’s direction, but the mother preferred to just observe. Nachtigal also testified that “[i]t definitely would take more than two sessions to be able to learn this type of activity” and that the father was not yet able to perform the techniques to Nachtigal’s satisfaction, but that at least he did try. The mother, who expressed confidence in her ability to learn the exercises, given training, indicated she did not participate in exercising the child because she did not fully understand the exercises at that time and wanted to avoid doing anything that might injure the child. The record reveals the exercises were very complex and require placing the child in weight-bearing positions.
The child came to the attention of the juvenile court and was removed from the parental home and placed in foster care on July 31, 1985, when, at age 7 weeks, she suffered a spiral fracture of the femur. The record does not tell us how the injury occurred, nor what its manifestations were. The record does, however, reflect that while in the parents’ possession and care, the child “was clean and dry. They [the parents] were a little rough in handling the child, and had to be reminded several times to support her head.” They were able to feed the child properly and maintained their home in reasonably good order.
In the early period of foster care the child was transported to the parents’ home by Betsy Mack, an employee of the state Department of Social Services, who supervised the child’s weekly visit with her parents and instructed the parents in parenting skills. In Mack’s words,
I didn’t actually do very many things myself; I was more observing; a little bit of showing how; but, it was pretty much they did the things, did what needed to be done. We worked on feeding; she was hard to feed, she would choke, just on a bottle, even; it was — you’d have to be very careful feeding her a bottle or she would choke. Also, I tried to teach just how persistive they would have to be doing this, and consistent to just do the same things over and over.
During these visits, the mother would bathe her daughter and *897usually took the responsibility for hand-feeding the child her solid baby food. Each parent took turns bottle-feeding the child. Mack observed that the parents seemed apprehensive about engaging in the child’s exercise routines and did not do so frequently. However, Mack herself seems to have experienced some apprehension regarding her own ability to engage the child in her exercises, noting, “Well, really, in three visits [with the physical therapist] I prob— wasn’t knowledgeable enough to have done it on a continual basis; I would of had to have learned a lot more.”
At one point the father had to be told not to give his daughter her medication twice in one day, rather than the prescribed single administration, in the hope that “this way she could get well quicker.”
Following her first unsupervised overnight visit with her parents, the child was returned to her foster family at 8:30 in the morning on May 16, 1986. At 10:30 a.m., red marks were noticed on the child’s chest. The child was examined by a physician, who concluded the marks were not signs of any serious injury. The mother noted that she had taken the child outside in a stroller twice during the day of the unsupervised home visit, and speculated that perhaps the red marks resulted from the child’s being bounced about a bit while strapped in a baby stroller for a walk over an uneven sidewalk. The photographs contained in the record depict marks which are consistent with the mother’s speculation as to their cause. Nonetheless, because of these red marks, the parents were allowed no further unsupervised visits with their daughter and only drastically curtailed supervised visits.
The record reflects the mother recognizes that she needs help to take care of her child. Collamer and a Dr. Robert Heins, a psychiatrist, are of the opinion that the mother is not competent to care for the child by herself on a daily basis, although Heins states no independent basis for his opinion apart from one “session with her today.” The record demonstrates, however, that both the mother’s and father’s parental skills have shown consistent improvement.
The record also demonstrates that the parents have been consistent and insistent in their desire for more contact with *898their daughter and that both parents have cooperated with the Department of Social Services in carrying out their treatment plan.
In an appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights, we are obligated to try the factual questions de novo on the record and reach a conclusion independent of the findings of the trial court but, where evidence is in conflict, consider and may give weight to the trial court’s observation of the witnesses and acceptance of one version of the facts rather than another. In re Interest of L.H., ante p. 857, 420 N.W.2d 318 (1988); In re Interest of J.S., A.C., and C.S., ante p. 251, 417 N.W.2d 147 (1987).
As this court recently observed, the unequivocal language of § 43-292 imposes two requirements before parental rights may be terminated. The evidence must clearly and convincingly establish, first, that there exists a legal ground for terminating parental rights and, second, that such termination is in the child’s best interests. In re Interest of L.H., supra; In re Interest of J.S., A.C., and C.S., supra.
There is no doubt but that the parents suffer from “mental deficiency and there are reasonable grounds to believe that such condition will continue for a prolonged indeterminate period.” § 43-292(5). However, the record does not support a finding that it is for this reason the parents are unable to discharge their parental responsibilities, nor does it establish that termination of the parents’ rights to their daughter is in the child’s best interests.
With regard to the question of causality, the record clearly demonstrates that the child’s special needs are such that even many intellectually gifted parents would not be able, without assistance, to provide the care that the child requires. Specialists will be required to assess the child’s ongoing therapy program on a regular and continuing basis. These experts will need to modify the child’s therapy as her needs change, and they will then be required to teach these new therapeutic exercise programs to the child’s caregivers, whoever they may be. The mere fact that the child’s natural parents may learn these exercise programs more slowly than might some other person does not, of itself, provide a basis for terminating their parental *899rights. Furthermore, it stretches the imagination to think that even most intellectually gifted parents would have the time to oversee all of the child’s inhome therapy by themselves; like the parents, any other homemaker would require outside help to meet the child’s special need for daily physical therapy.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the parents’ inability to provide for their daughter’s needs results from their mental deficiencies; rather, their inability to provide for the child’s needs by themselves results from the fact that these needs are special. Our statutes make no provision for termination of parental rights on the basis of a child’s special needs.
Furthermore, the record fails to clearly and convincingly establish that termination of her parents’ rights will be in the child’s best interests. Rather, the reverse is true; the record clearly and convincingly demonstrates that these parents love their daughter and, yet, under circumstances of great stress, recognize their own limitations and are willing to work to overcome them. I do not overlook the fact that there is no explanation for the fracture the child sustained. I suggest, however, that the fact the child sustained a fracture while in her parents’ care does not prove the parents to be unfit to retain their legal ties to their daughter. Human experience is replete with examples of children injured while in the possession, care, and control of intelligent, competent, loving, and nurturing parents. Neither is the failure of intelligent, competent, loving, and nurturing parents to recognize a fracture as early as one might wish outside the range of normal human experience. Nor is overmedication in the hope of speeding recovery unknown among otherwise intelligent people. While these occurrences establish that the child is in a situation injurious to her health and thus, under the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) (Cum. Supp. 1986), present a basis for the juvenile court to assert jurisdiction and place her in foster care, they do not furnish a legal ground for terminating parental rights.
The policy of this state regarding termination of parental ■ rights has been set out in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-246 (Cum. Supp. 1986), which provides that the goals of “assuring] the rights of all juveniles to care and protection and a stable living environment and to development of their capacities for a *900healthy personality, physical well-being, and useful citizenship, ” are to be pursued through methods which
separate] the juvenile from his or her parent only when necessary for his or her welfare or in the interest of public safety and, when temporary separation is necessary, to consider the developmental needs of the individual juvenile in all placements and to assure every reasonable effort possible to reunite the juvenile and his or her family.
It is not the policy of this state to separate children from their natural parents merely because the parents are “mildly mentally retarded” or the children “developmentally disabled.” Rather, it- is axiomatic that once there has been.the adjudication that a child is a juvenile within the meaning of the act, the foremost purpose or objective of the Nebraska Juvenile Code is promotion and protection of a juvenile’s best interests, with preservation of the juvenile’s familial relationship with his or her parent(s) where continuation of the parental relationship is proper under the law. In re Interest of J.S., A.C., and C.S., ante p. 251, 417 N.W.2d 147 (1987).
Termination of parental rights is permissible when there exists.no other reasonable alternative in the best interests of the child and only as a last resort when the basis for such is proved by clear and convincing evidence. In re Interest of J.S., A.C., and C.S., supra; In re Interest of T.C., 226 Neb. 116, 409 N. W. 2d 607 (1987). In my view the record does not demonstrate the absence of any reasonable alternative. Quite the contrary, the record demonstrates that the child faces exactly the same alternatives regardless of whether the rights of her parents are terminated; the child will need to be provided intensive special services, most likely at public expense, by specialists both inside and outside her home, for years to come.
• Under these circumstances, I cannot conclude it is better for the child to grow up. without legal ties to her natural parents, even if those, natural parents’ human frailties are perhaps somewhat more apparent than most. Certainly, childhood with loving natural parents, even if one cannot live with those parents, is far preferable to childhood without them. Indeed, if a child such as A.M.K. were voluntarily institutionalized by intellectually gifted parents, we would not terminate their *901parental rights on the ground they had proved themselves incapable of taking care of the child in their home. In my view the best interests of A.M.K. demand that she travel the path fate has decreed for her, if not in the company, then with the emotional support, of her parents, their own frailties notwithstanding.
I would therefore reverse the judgment of the juvenile court and continue foster care for the child.
Shanahan, J., joins in this dissent.