In re Interest of Deztiny C.

Caselaw Number
15 Neb. App. 179
Filed On


SUMMARY: The court found that the father’s “failure to intervene, when he was provided with substandard information, [did] not constitute abandonment,” and that the father’s use of the “automatic withdrawal payment process for child support” was not “a token effort, nor [did] it someone negatively impact his act of supporting his daughter.”

In January 2004, Deztiny and her sibling were removed from her mother’s home and placed in state custody. In February, Deztiny’s father contacted DHHS to “discuss how to obtain custody of Deztiny” through the intervention process. Deztiny’s father indicated that he wanted custody but would be willing to begin with visitation. Visitation was awarded in August 2005. Two days later the State sought to terminate the father’s parental rights. The juvenile court concluded that termination was not in Deztiny’s best interests at the present time and the State appealed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s ruling that termination was not in Deztiny’s best interests. The State failed to make their case on abandonment on both the failure to intervene and failure to support grounds. Although Deztiny’s father was not in contact with DHHS between February 2004 and May 2005, he testified that he was not in contact because he had been told that “someone from the visitation agency would contact him.” He also testified that he tried to get in touch with someone at DHHS, but his calls were never returned. The caseworker admitted that “it was possible that DHHS had received, but failed to respond to” his messages. Further, he was unaware that his daughter’s case had been transferred to another caseworker. Finally, Deztiny’s father was never properly informed about the procedures required for him to intervene. Thus, the court found that the father’s “failure to intervene, when he was provided with substandard information, [did] not constitute abandonment.” Deztiny’s father paid child support during the time period in question through the automatic withdrawal payment system. The court recognized, contrary to the State’s position that his “availing himself to an efficient and effective procedure” for paying child support “does not constitute a token effort, nor does it somehow negatively impact his act of supporting his daughter.”

The Court of Appeals also affirmed the juvenile court’s ruling that Deztiny’s father did not neglect her. The father’s “history of criminal conduct [did] not rise to the level of neglect, because” Deztiny’s mother cared for her during his incarceration and “because there was no evidence that the convictions adversely affected Deztiny.” Her father was only incarcerated for 4 months and her mother provided her adequate care during that time. Deztiny’s father has: lived with his fiancé and her children for 6 years without incident, sought court ordered visitation, paid child support, attended hearings, and has regularly visited Deztiny, only missing 4 visits.

The court found termination was not in Deztiny’s best interests for the following reasons: her father was working to improve his parenting skills and has enrolled in parenting classes, is currently paying child support and regularly visiting Deztiny, and he is working to integrate Deztiny into his and his fiancé’s family.