SUMMARY: A juvenile court should exercise its authority to order DHHS to accept a relinquishment of the child when it is in the best interests of that child to do so and not the interests of a future born child.
Elizabeth, DOB May 2009, was born prematurely and stayed 8 weeks in the hospital. During that time, the mother, Victoria, did not visit her. Elizabeth was placed in foster care when released around July 7, 2009. Over the next year, Victoria made very few efforts to reunify with Elizabeth, moved to Illinois and rarely attended court hearings. On July 30, 2010, Victoria filed a motion to require DHHS to accept her relinquishment of Elizabeth. DHHS refused to accept and instead wanted the court to terminate parental rights because Victoria had given birth to another child; therefore, having a termination as to Elizabeth would preclude them from having to provide Victoria with reasonable efforts to reunify with the after-born sibling. The court did not rule on Victoria’s motion and the case went to trial on a petition to terminate parental rights. On February 2, 2011, the court terminated Victoria’s parental rights and overruled her motion to require DHHS to accept the relinquishment, finding it moot. Victoria appealed.
The Nebraska Supreme Court found that the court should have ordered DHHS to accept the relinquishment but affirmed the termination based on mootness. It noted that it made strategic sense for DHHS to refuse the relinquishment so that it could avoid providing reasonable efforts to Victoria to reunify with future-born siblings as provided under N.R.S. 43-283.01(4)(c). However, it also noted that the juvenile court must protect the best interests of the child under its jurisdiction and just as DHHS refusing relinquishment for child support purposes in In re Interest of Gabriela H., 280 Neb. 284, 785 N.W.2d 843 (2010), was not in the child’s best interests neither is refusing a relinquishment based on simplifying the State’s burden as to another child over whom the court doesn’t have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court did note, however, that while a relinquishment does not have the same automatic collateral effect as a termination, it can still be used as evidence supporting termination in a future case.
The Supreme Court clearly stated its holding: “We hold that a juvenile court should exercise its authority to order the Department to accept a valid relinquishment with respect to an adjudicated child, pursuant to In re Interest of Gabriela H., when it would be in the best interests of that child to do so.” 282 Neb. at 1024. Finally, the Supreme Court found sufficient evidence to uphold the termination of parental rights and, finding the issue of relinquishment moot, affirmed the juvenile decision.