SUMMARY: Termination was in the children’s best interest where the mother failed to comply with the rehabilitation plan despite assistance from state workers, which included additional efforts addressing cultural barriers.
Dut A., DOB 1/96, and Akon A., DOB 11/99 were removed from the care of the mother, Achol, on March 25, 2008, after the mother was found on top of Akon assaulting her. The family are Sudanese refugees and Achol does not speak English. Achol admitted to allegations pursuant to N.R.S. 43-247(3)(a) on June 11, 2008, and was ordered to comply with a rehabilitation plan at hearings in August and November 2008 and February and April 2009. The plan included obtaining stable house, maintaining a source of income, completing a chemical dependency evaluation and treatment, submitting to random UAs, and participating in individual therapy. Achol was also ordered to participate in therapeutic and supervised visits. On March 30, 2010, a motion to terminate Achol’s parental rights was filed. After trial, the juvenile court terminated Achol’s parental rights pursuant to 43-292(7). Between removal and termination, Achol had held a job for only two months. She could not maintain stable housing as she continued getting in fights with other residents. She sporadically attended individual therapy and did not follow through on inpatient and outpatient treatment opportunities offered to her. The family support worker made efforts to resolve cultural barriers, such as understanding English, by offering English as a second language classes and job training classes. DHHS also consulted with a cultural anthropologist concerning the Sudanese culture to make efforts appropriate. Her visits with the children were sporadic and her conduct at times inappropriate and the children eventually indicated that they no longer wanted to visit with her. After trial terminating her parental rights, Achol appealed.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the termination. Because Achol did not argue the statutory basis for termination, the Court of Appeals only considered whether termination was in the children’s best interests. It rejected Achol’s argument that her inability to speak English and cultural differences were barriers to complying with a rehabilitation plan, noting DHHS’ efforts to respond to the cultural issues and to Achol’s refusal to comply with many provisions of the plan. The Court of Appeals reviewed the failure of Achol to comply with the rehabilitation plan. It also discussed her inability to have appropriate visits with the children and the children’s eventual unwillingness to visit with her.