Court Opinion

ID: 9382622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-28 14:06:32.965401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:40.504815
License: Public Domain

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS

               MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL
                        (Memorandum Web Opinion)

                               IN RE INTEREST OF KRISTOPHER G.

  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 KRISTOPHER G., A CHILD UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE.

                                STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE,
                                               V.

                                   LADARIUS G., APPELLANT.

                             Filed March 28, 2023.    No. A-22-630.

       Appeal from the County Court for Dawson County: JEFFREY M. WIGHTMAN, Judge.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
       Claire K. Bazata, of Berreckman & Bazata, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.
       R. Garrett Goodwin, Deputy Dawson County Attorney, for appellee.

       PIRTLE, Chief Judge, and MOORE and WELCH, Judges.
       MOORE, Judge.
                                       INTRODUCTION
        Ladarius G. appeals from an order of the county court for Dawson County, sitting as a
juvenile court, terminating his parental rights to his son, Kristopher G. Upon our de novo review
of the record, we conclude that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that
Ladarius was an unfit parent and that it was in Kristopher’s best interests to terminate Ladarius’
parental rights. We therefore reverse the order of the juvenile court and remand for further
proceedings.

                                              -1-
                                    STATEMENT OF FACTS
Procedural Background.
        Ladarius is the biological father of Kristopher, born in June 2020. Kristopher’s biological
mother, Katelyn G., relinquished her parental rights at the start of the termination trial, and we
discuss her only as necessary to the resolution of the current appeal by Ladarius.
        Kristopher was removed from Katelyn’s care by law enforcement on August 3, 2020, in
Lexington, Nebraska. Kentucky authorities had been tracing the cell phone signal of a teenage
runaway and alerted local law enforcement that the runaway was in the area. Law enforcement
located the runaway in a vehicle along with Katelyn and Kristopher, who was only 6 weeks old.
Katelyn, also from Kentucky, reported to law enforcement that she was friends with the runaway
and had wanted to get away from home for a couple of days. She was then taken into custody and
Kristopher was taken into emergency custody by the Nebraska Department of Health and Human
Services (the Department). Katelyn refused to provide the identity of Kristopher’s father at the
time of his removal. Shortly after Kristopher’s removal, he was diagnosed with dehydration and
failure to thrive due to his low weight. A petition was filed on August 5 to adjudicate Kristopher
pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) (Reissue 2016) based on a lack of proper parental care
provided by Katelyn. An ex parte custody order was signed that same day, continuing temporary
care with Department. Kristopher has remained out of the home and in foster placement since he
was removed.
        Katelyn later identified Ladarius as Kristopher’s biological father and genetic testing was
completed in October 2020. On November 10, 2020, test results were received by the Department
indicating that Ladarius was Kristopher’s father. Throughout the entirety of this case Ladarius has
been incarcerated in Kentucky. Upon discovering that he was Kristopher’s father, Ladarius
communicated to the Department that he wanted to be a party to the juvenile case. We note that
from our record on appeal, it appears that no supplemental petition containing allegations related
to Ladarius was ever filed.
        The juvenile court entered a dispositional plan regarding Ladarius on December 16, 2020,
adopting the case plan presented by the Department. Ladarius’ case plan goals included (1)
building a relationship with Kristopher by participating in regular video visitation or creating plans
to have in person visitation; and (2) having monthly contact with the Department. Several review
hearings were held during this case; occurring on March 24, 2021, and June 3, September 7,
December 8, and March 9, 2022. The goals of the court adopted plans have been consistent
throughout the case. Further details regarding the plans will be discussed in connection with our
analysis below.
        On April 1, 2022, the State filed a motion for termination of Katelyn and Ladarius’ rights
to Kristopher; alleging statutory grounds to terminate the parents’ rights existed pursuant to Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 43-292(6) and (7) (Reissue 2016), and alleging that termination was in Kristopher’s
best interests.

                                                -2-
Termination Trial.
         A termination trial related only to Ladarius was held on June 8, 2022, as Katelyn
relinquished her parental rights at the beginning of the trial. At the trial, two Department
caseworkers and Ladarius testified as witnesses.
         Amanda Daily was Kristopher’s caseworker from September 4, 2020, until April 4, 2022.
Daily’s involvement with the case ended when Kristopher’s permanency goal was changed from
reunification to adoption and the case was transferred to a worker on the Department’s permanency
team.
         Daily testified that Ladarius had been incarcerated since September 18, 2020, for second
degree battery and wanton endangerment. Ladarius had been incarcerated for the entirety of
Kristopher’s juvenile case and Kristopher and Ladarius had never met in person or had any
physical contact. Daily was concerned that Ladarius was incarcerated for a violent crime, but later
acknowledged that she had been mistaken and Ladarius had been convicted of burglary, not
battery.
         Daily testified to Ladarius’ case plan goal of maintaining monthly communication with the
Department. Attempting to call the facility where Ladarius was incarcerated, “proved to be very
difficult,” and Daily was not able to reach Ladarius by placing monthly calls from September to
December 2020. Daily thereafter began sending monthly letters to Ladarius which included
updates on the case, court proceedings, and Kristopher’s developmental progress. At the end of
the letter, Daily always instructed Ladarius to call her at a set time and date in 3 to 4 weeks. In
addition to including her phone number, Daily included her email address and her office’s physical
address. Daily’s monthly letters were not offered into evidence.
         The record shows that Ladarius attempted to call Daily in January 2021 (after receiving the
first letter from her), but he was unable to reach Daily due to inclement weather in Nebraska.
Ladarius called Daily again on February 4, 2021. During this phone call, Daily was allotted only
15 minutes and she spent the time introducing herself, explaining the posture of Kristopher’s
juvenile case, and speaking briefly about having Ladarius’ family become involved in the case. As
Daily began speaking about video visitation between Ladarius and Kristopher the call was cut off.
Daily did not receive another phone call from Ladarius until January 27, 2022, which call was
initiated by his mother. In this phone call, Ladarius told Daily that he was getting connected with
a parenting class, but Daily was unsure if he ever completed the program. Daily did not specifically
ask him to participate in any programming.
         In one of Daily’s phone calls with Ladarius, he indicated that he received all of Daily’s
letters but that he had no money “on his books” to communicate with Daily. Daily did not believe
the Department would be able to provide Ladarius with funds to help facilitate his communication
with the Department, but noted that she never discussed putting money in Ladarius’ account with
a supervisor. Daily also conceded that the Department could have afforded sending Ladarius return
addressed stamped envelopes to facilitate written correspondence. Daily did not attempt to make
any calls to Ladarius from December 2020 to March 2022.
         Daily was unable to fully complete a Family Strengths and Needs Assessment, used for
determining case plan goals for families, because she did not have relevant information from
Ladarius. Daily acknowledged that her letters did not pose any questions to Ladarius, that she did

                                               -3-
not make him aware that she needed to interview him for an evaluation, and that the assessment
was never explained to him. Although Daily testified that the assessment was completed using
historic information from Katelyn and Ladarius’ mother, there is no specific parenting assessment
regarding Ladarius in the record. Rather, the case plans and court reports only note that Ladarius
is incarcerated out of state. The case plan in March 2021 indicated that after Ladarius completed
his sentence, he needed to communicate with the Department in order to fully assess his strengths
and needs.
         Ladarius’ other case plan goal was to build a relationship with Kristopher through
participation in regular video visitation, or creating plans to have in person visits with Kristopher.
Daily’s letters did not provide Ladarius with instructions on how to exercise video visitation with
Kristopher. Daily stated that she hoped that Ladarius’ mother had provided him with the relevant
information regarding video visitation, as Daily had discussed such with her. The record shows
that at some point, the Department authorized Ladarius to have video visitation during Katelyn’s
parenting time.
         Ladarius was initially held in a county jail and then was transferred to a correctional
facility. The first facility had a specific website application which was necessary to use for any
kind of video visitation. Neither Katelyn nor her family support worker were able to get the
application downloaded onto their phones. Daily called the first facility in an effort to set up video
visitation but her calls went unanswered and she never received a call back from a facility official.
         In Ladarius’ first facility, the video call application was a paid application which required
someone to put money into his account. Daily noted that any member of Ladarius’ family could
have funded his account in order for video visitation to occur. Daily conceded that the Department
has a practice of paying to help parents have visitation with their children, but added that the
practice was only applicable to an “engaged parent. . .” When Ladarius was transferred to a second
correctional facility in March 2022, he was allotted one visit via Zoom videoconferencing a month.
         Daily estimated that six or seven video calls occurred between Ladarius and Kristopher
throughout the juvenile case. However, the calls were very short due to Kristopher’s young age.
Daily was not aware of any occasions where Ladarius refused opportunities to have video visits
with Kristopher. Daily did not believe that a significant bond could be developed between a parent
and toddler through video calls. No visitation notes or other documentation regarding Ladarius’
video visitation with Kristopher was entered into evidence.
         All of the videos calls happened with the assistance of Katelyn or Ladarius’ mother during
Katelyn’s supervised visitation with Kristopher. Visitation plans attached to the Department’s case
plans confirm that Katelyn was tasked by the Department with facilitating video visitation between
Ladarius and Kristopher. Daily testified that there was not a possibility for any other video calls to
have happened between Ladarius and Kristopher.
         Daily was unable to facilitate any in person visits between Ladarius and Kristopher due to
Ladarius being incarcerated out of state. Daily did not contact the correctional facilities to inquire
into the possibly of an in person visit between Ladarius and Kristopher and did not work with
Ladarius’ family to set up an in person visit. Daily indicated that the plan for in person visits
referenced in Ladarius’ case plan was intended for after Ladarius’ release. She stated that the
Department did not support in person visits if Kristopher had to travel to Kentucky. However, the

                                                -4-
March 2021 case plan indicated that the Department would assist with transportation in Nebraska
once Ladarius was released.
        One of Daily’s greatest concerns regarding Ladarius’ ability to parent Kristopher was that,
at the time of trial, “[t]he Department does not have enough knowledge to safely say that
Kristopher would be safe in the care of Ladarius. . .” Daily was also concerned by Ladarius’ lack
of engagement in the case and with the Department, and opined that termination of Ladarius’
parental rights was in Kristopher’s best interest.
        Daily testified that she completed two “ICPC packets” for home studies on two relatives
in Kentucky (Katelyn’s aunt and Ladarius’ mother), but both ICPCs were denied. Kristopher was
placed with two different foster couples; the second couple indicated a willingness to adopt
Kristopher.
        Paige Peterson was the Department caseworker who took over the case from Daily in April
2022 and was Kristopher’s caseworker until the time of trial. Although the court-ordered case
plans included a goal that Ladarius build a relationship with Kristopher through weekly supervised
video visitation, Peterson had not facilitated any video calls since becoming involved in the case.
Because Kristopher’s sole permanency goal had been changed to adoption with no secondary goal
of reunification, Peterson explained that she was no longer required to provide reasonable efforts
to establish a bond between Ladarius and Kristopher.
        Peterson testified that she looked up Ladarius’ release date on the Kentucky Inmates
Website to prepare the most recent case plan. According to Peterson, the website indicated that
Ladarius would be released in August 2023, however, a copy of the website page was not offered
into evidence. At some point, Ladarius’ mother advised that Ladarius was eligible for parole in
August 2022.
        Peterson had one phone call with Ladarius in May 2022 where he communicated to her
that he would be released in August 2022. Ladarius discussed his plans for release with Peterson,
which included seeking employment and housing in Kentucky. Ladarius also communicated to
Peterson that he had not been able to participate in many courses while incarcerated due to
COVID-19 restrictions, but he was able to participate in a reintegration course focused on
preparing for his release.
        Due to Ladarius’ incarceration, Peterson found it challenging to identify his strengths and
weaknesses as a parent. However, Peterson noted that no bond existed between Ladarius and
Kristopher due to his incarceration. After Ladarius’ release it would be a “possibility” that the
Department would have to start transporting Kristopher to Kentucky to establish a bond. However,
Peterson indicated that Kristopher has an extreme fear of strangers. Peterson stated that introducing
Ladarius to Kristopher in person would leave Kristopher “terrified,” which would not be in
Kristopher’s best interests.
        Ladarius testified that his date of release was in September 2022 and after his release he
would be able to leave the state, subject to approval. He clarified that he was convicted of second
degree burglary and first degree wanton endangerment.
        Ladarius stated that he wants contact with Kristopher and the ability to work toward
reunification. Ladarius was not notified that he was Kristopher’s father before his birth, and only
discovered that he was Kristopher’s father through genetic testing in November 2020.

                                                -5-
         While incarcerated, Ladarius completed an anger management class and a reintegration
class focused on how to gain employment and prepare a budget upon release. Ladarius also started
a parenting class but because the instructor resigned, it was never completed.
         Ladarius estimated that he had 20 to 30 video calls with Kristopher throughout the case.
No information was ever provided by the Department regarding how Ladarius could exercise video
visitation with Kristopher and Katelyn was Ladarius’ main point of contact for facilitating the
video visits. Ladarius also denied that he received any communication regarding the Department’s
need to complete a Family Strengths and Needs Assessment.
         All video calls have been funded by members of Ladarius’ family. It cost Ladarius $3.50
to have video visitation with Kristopher and $5 to make a 15-minute phone call. Ladarius testified
to foregoing calling the Department in order to save the money for video calls with Kristopher.
Juvenile Court’s Order.
         The juvenile court entered an order on August 3, 2022, terminating Ladarius’ parental
rights to Kristopher. The court found that pursuant to § 43-292(6), Ladarius had failed to correct
the conditions that led to the child being adjudicated under § 43-247(3)(a). The court also found
that pursuant to § 43-292(7), Kristopher had been in out-of-home placement for 15 or more months
out of the most recent 22 months. The court further found that Ladarius was an unfit parent and
that it was in the best interests of Kristopher to have Ladarius’ parental rights terminated.
         Ladarius appeals.
                                   ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
        Ladarius assigns, restated, that the juvenile court erred in finding that (1) statutory grounds
existed to terminate his parental rights under § 43-292(6), and (2) termination of his parental rights
was in Kristopher’s best interests.
                                    STANDARD OF REVIEW
       An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on the record and reaches its conclusions
independently of the juvenile court’s findings. When the evidence is in conflict, however, an
appellate court may give weight to the fact that the juvenile court observed the witnesses and
accepted one version of facts over another. In re Interest of Mateo L. et al., 309 Neb. 565, 961
N.W.2d 516 (2021).
                                            ANALYSIS
Statutory Grounds for Termination.
        The juvenile court found that the State had presented clear and convincing evidence to
satisfy § 43-292(6) and (7). Ladarius asserts that the State failed to prove the statutory grounds for
termination under § 43-292(6). However, Ladarius acknowledges that Kristopher has been out of
the home for at least 15 of the most recent 22 months.
        Section 43-292(7) allows for termination when the juvenile has been in an out-of-home
placement for 15 or more months of the most recent 22 months. It operates mechanically and,
unlike the other subsections of the statute, does not require the State to adduce evidence of any
specific fault on the part of a parent. In re Interest of Kenna S., 17 Neb. App. 544, 766 N.W.2d

                                                 -6-
424 (2009). In a case of termination of parental rights based on § 43-292(7), the protection afforded
the rights of the parent comes in the best interests step of the analysis. Id.
         Here, Kristopher has been in out-of-home placement for 15 or more months of the most
recent 22 months. Kristopher was removed from Katelyn’s care on August 3, 2020. The State filed
the motion for termination of parental rights on April 1, 2022, and the termination trial was held
in June 2022. Kristopher remained out of the home since his removal in August 2020. At the time
of trial, Kristopher had been out of the home for 22 months. Thus, the statutory requirement for
termination under § 43-292(7) has been met.
         If an appellate court determines that the lower court correctly found that termination of
parental rights is appropriate under one of the statutory grounds set forth in § 43-292, the appellate
court need not further address the sufficiency of the evidence to support termination under any
other statutory ground. In re Interest of Becka P. et al., 27 Neb. App. 489, 933 N.W.2d 873 (2019).
Because the State presented clear and convincing evidence that Kristopher had been in an
out-of-home placement for 15 or more months of the most recent 22 months, statutory grounds for
termination of Ladarius’ parental rights exists.
Best Interests and Unfitness.
        Ladarius assigns that the juvenile court erred in finding that it was in Kristopher’s best
interests to terminate his parental rights. In addition to proving a statutory ground, the State must
show that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the children. § 43-292; In re
Interest of Isabel P. et al., 293 Neb. 62, 875 N.W.2d 848 (2016). Because the parent’s right to raise
his or her children is constitutionally protected, the court may terminate parental rights only when
the State shows that the parent is unfit. In re Interest of Isabel P. et al., supra. There is a rebuttable
presumption that the best interests of the children are served by having a relationship with their
parent. Id. This presumption is overcome only when the State has proved that the parent is unfit.
Id. Parental unfitness means a personal deficiency or incapacity which has prevented, or will
probably prevent, performance of a reasonable parental obligation in child rearing and which
caused, or probably will result in, detriment to the child’s well-being. Id. The best interests analysis
and the parental fitness analysis are separate inquiries, but each examines essentially the same
underlying facts as the other. Id.
        Our review of the record shows that the Department’s case plans and court reports focused
almost exclusively on Katelyn. The strategies and services provided for reunification did not
mention Ladarius. The only “reasonable effort” in these plans and reports related to Ladarius was
to “make monthly efforts to locate and engage Kristopher’s alleged father to establish paternity.”
This notation was included in the reports long after Ladarius was identified as the father.
        Almost the entirety of the State’s evidence related to best interests and unfitness focused
on Ladarius’ incarceration. Although incarceration alone cannot be the sole basis for terminating
parental rights, it is a factor to be considered. In re Interest of Jahon S., 291 Neb. 97, 864 N.W.2d
228 (2015). And we have noted that although incarceration itself may be involuntary as far as a
parent is concerned, the criminal conduct causing the incarceration is voluntary. Id. Thus, in a case
involving termination of parental rights, it is proper to consider a parent’s inability to perform his
or her parental obligations because of incarceration. Id. We recognize and consider that it was

                                                  -7-
Ladarius’ own actions that caused him to be incarcerated. We also consider the fact that at that the
time the crime was committed, he was unaware that Kristopher was his son.
         Maintaining monthly contact with the Department was one of Ladarius’ case plan goals.
Because Ladarius was incarcerated out of state, the Department caseworkers did not see Ladarius
in person. According to Daily, her attempts to call Ladarius directly at the correctional facility
were unsuccessful (due to the facility not responding) and her communication with Ladarius was
limited to monthly letters beginning in December 2020. Daily had only two phone calls with
Ladarius, in February 2021 and January 2022. Daily missed a phone call from Ladarius in January
2021 due to inclement weather in Nebraska. Peterson had only one phone call with Ladarius in
May 2022. Ladarius agreed that he received letters regarding the status of the case and also
received information from his mother who maintained contact with the caseworkers.
         Daily testified that Ladarius communicated to her that he did not have the funds to
consistently call her. Ladarius explained that rather than spend money on phone calls to the
Department, he saved the funds to be used toward video visitation with Kristopher. In addition,
Ladarius relied in part upon his mother’s communication with the Department.
         Ladarius’ other case plan goal was to build a relationship with Kristopher through
participation in regular video visitation, or creating plans to have in person visits with Kristopher.
Although the case plans noted that Ladarius was to be provided monthly video visits with
Kristopher, the Department did not do anything to facilitate these visits, leaving them up to
Ladarius, his mother, and Katelyn to arrange. Ladarius testified that he received no information
from the Department regarding how to access video visitation with Kristopher. The record notes
that there was difficulty accessing the video application by these individuals as well as by the
family support worker. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the Department made efforts
to ensure the video visits with Ladarius occurred. Daily’s testimony and the Department case plans
reflect that Ladarius’ mother was responsible for communicating relevant information regarding
video visitation, Ladarius’ family was responsible for funding the application to have the visitation,
and Katelyn was responsible for facilitating the video calls between Ladarius and Kristopher
during her own parenting time. Daily testified that 6-7 video calls occurred during the case and
Ladarius testified that the number was closer to 20-30. No documentation evidencing the number
of video calls or describing the interactions between Ladarius and Kristopher was entered or
received into evidence. Neither Katelyn nor the family support worker who observed these video
visits were called to testify.
         Although the Department case plans required Ladarius to establish a bond with Kristopher
through video visitation, both Department caseworkers testified at trial that they did not believe a
significant bond could be developed between a parent and toddler through video calls. Further,
Peterson testified that because no bond was established though video visitation, it would not be in
Kristopher’s best interests for him to meet his father after Ladarius’ release. Although Peterson
briefly mentioned Kristopher’s fear of strangers, no evidence from a child psychologist or other
clinician was offered to support this assertion or describe what services could be offered to assist
Kristopher in meeting his father.
         The Department did not require Ladarius to participate in any programs while he was
incarcerated. Ladarius testified that he completed an anger management and a reintegration course,
and was at one point enrolled in a parenting class. The Department did not seek any evaluations

                                                -8-
of Ladarius or attempt to gather information regarding his history or parenting abilities. Although
we recognize that such background work may be difficult given that Ladarius was in Kentucky,
there was essentially no effort to consider reunification with Ladarius for the stated reason that he
was incarcerated out of state.
         Finally, there appears to have been confusion at trial regarding Ladarius’ date of release as
the caseworkers and Ladarius testified to different dates. Ladarius stated that he would be released
in September 2022, a few months after the termination trial. Although Peterson testified that she
had looked up the date of release on the Kentucky Inmates Website, which showed August 2023,
the Department did not offer any further evidence or documentation from the Kentucky
Department of Corrections to address the differing dates. We note that the record shows the
Department was advised by Ladarius’ mother that he was eligible for parole in August 2022.
         Kristopher has spent all but the first 6 weeks of his life in foster care, having been removed
from his mother’s custody due to neglect. Ladarius did not know he was Kristopher’s father until
genetic testing was completed a couple of months later, at which time he was already incarcerated.
It is uncontested that Ladarius and Kristopher have never had any physical contact due to
Kristopher’s presence in Nebraska and Ladarius’ incarceration in Kentucky.
         In In re Interest of Denzel D., 31 Neb. App. 547, 985 N.W.2d 45 (2023), this court recently
considered whether it was in the child’s best interests to terminate the parental rights of a father
who did not learn that he was the biological father of the child until after he was already
incarcerated. While the father remained incarcerated through the pendency of the juvenile case and
the termination trial, we noted that he had demonstrated a commitment to the child through
consistent phone calls, completing various classes and programming, and participation in the
services required of him. Because the father actively worked to improve his parenting skills and
to maintain a relationship with his child, we determined that termination of the father’s rights was
not in the child’s best interests.
         Similarly, in In re Interest of Xaiden N., 30 Neb. App. 378, 968 N.W.2d 856 (2021), we
reversed the termination of a father’s parental rights. Although the State had proven the statutory
ground for termination under § 43-292(7), we concluded that the State failed to prove that the
father was unfit or that it was in the child’s best interests to terminate the father’s parental rights.
In that case, the child was removed from his parents care when he was approximately 1 month old.
Shortly thereafter, the father was arrested, and was incarcerated throughout the case. The father
was not able to have in person visits and he was unable to arrange virtual visits. We found that the
record was sparse as to what the father could have done while incarcerated to work toward
reunification with his child. We noted that the father’s ability to meet with the caseworker and to
have visitation was limited by the COVID-19 pandemic. We also noted the evidence that the father
was to be released from incarceration approximately 5 months after the termination trial. Under
these circumstances, we concluded that the father should have been given additional time to show
he could make progress on his case goals and parent the child before the Department sought to
terminate his parental rights.
         We find the case before us to be similar to In re Interest of Denzel D. and In re Interest of
Xaiden N. Ladarius did not learn that he was Kristopher’s biological father until after he was
already incarcerated, and upon learning of his paternity, Ladarius sought to be part of the juvenile
case. He has participated in video visits with Kristopher whenever possible, he has availed himself

                                                 -9-
of certain programs, and he has made some efforts to stay abreast of the juvenile court proceedings,
including direct communication with the Department, receiving information from his mother, and
in reviewing the written information sent to him. Ladarius has clearly made it known to the
Department that he desires to establish a relationship with Kristopher and to pursue reunification.
In fact, the June 2022 case plan references that Ladarius stated on numerous occasions that he felt
he had not been given a fair opportunity to work toward reunification with Kristopher.
         We conclude that the State has not met its burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence
that Ladarius is unfit or that it is in Kristopher’s best interests for Ladarius’ parental rights to be
terminated at this time. Daily testified that one of her greatest concerns was that the Department
did not have enough knowledge to evaluate Ladarius’ capacity as a parent. However, our review
of the record does not show that the Department made any effort to obtain such information.
Without evidence of Ladarius’ capacity as a parent, it is impossible to determine his fitness. Given
Ladarius’ impending release from incarceration (whether September 2022 or August 2023), the
Department could have obtained more complete information regarding Ladarius’ parental fitness
and capacity, and if an assessment revealed Ladarius to be an appropriate parent for Kristopher, a
plan to attempt reunification could have been developed. Ladarius expressed a willingness to come
to Nebraska upon his release from incarceration for the purpose of pursuing reunification. We
recognize that Kristopher does not know his father and he is placed with foster parents willing to
adopt him. However, the termination of Ladarius’ parental rights, without clear and convincing
evidence that he is an unfit parent, was error. Based upon these circumstances, we conclude that
Ladarius should be given an opportunity to make progress on a reunification plan.
         Under the circumstances of this case, we reverse the order of the juvenile court terminating
Ladarius’ parental rights to Kristopher. See In re Interest of Giavonna G., 23 Neb. App. 853, 876
N.W.2d 422 (2016) (termination of parental rights is final and complete severance of child from
parent and removes entire bundle of parental rights; therefore, with such severe and final
consequences, parental rights should be terminated only in absence of reasonable alternative and
as last resort).
                                          CONCLUSION
       For the reasons stated above, we reverse the order of the juvenile court terminating
Ladarius’ parental rights to Kristopher and remand the cause for further proceedings.
                                                                  REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR
                                                                  FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

                                                - 10 -