In re Interest of Steven S. , 27 Neb. Ct. App. 831 ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
    www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
    12/31/2019 09:06 AM CST
    - 831 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    In re Interest of Steven S., Jr., et al.,
    children under 18 years of age.
    State of Nebraska, appellee and cross-appellee,
    v. Steven S., Sr., appellant, and Jennette S.,
    appellee and cross-appellant.
    ___ N.W.2d ___
    Filed December 10, 2019.   Nos. A-18-1183 through A-18-1185.
    1. Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews juve-
    nile cases de novo on the record and reaches its conclusions indepen-
    dently of the juvenile court’s findings. When the evidence is in conflict,
    however, an appellate court may give weight to the fact that the lower
    court observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts over
    the other.
    2. Parental Rights: Proof. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292 (Reissue 2016) pro-
    vides 11 separate conditions, any one of which can serve as the basis
    for the termination of parental rights when coupled with evidence that
    termination is in the best interests of the child.
    3. Parent and Child: Child Custody. A parent’s failure to provide an
    environment to which his or her children can return can establish sub-
    stantial, continual, and repeated neglect.
    4. Parental Rights: Evidence: Appeal and Error. 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 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292 (Reissue 2016), the appellate court need not
    further address the sufficiency of the evidence to support termination
    under any other statutory ground.
    5. Parental Rights: Proof. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292 (Reissue
    2016), once the State shows that statutory grounds for termination of
    parental rights exist, the State must then show that termination is in the
    best interests of the child.
    6. Parental Rights: Presumptions: Proof. A child’s best interests are pre-
    sumed to be served by having a relationship with his or her parent. This
    - 832 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    presumption is overcome only when the State has proved that the parent
    is unfit.
    7. Constitutional Law: Parental Rights: Words and Phrases. In the
    context of the constitutionally protected relationship between a parent
    and a child, parental unfitness means a personal deficiency or incapac-
    ity which has prevented, or will probably prevent, performance of a
    reasonable parental obligation in child rearing and which has caused, or
    probably will result in, detriment to a child’s well-being.
    8. Rules of the Supreme Court: Appeal and Error. A cross-appellant
    is required to comply with the rules on cross-appeals, including the
    requirement that the cross-appellant designate on the cover of his or her
    brief that it is a cross-appeal, and set forth the cross-appeal in a separate
    division of the brief entitled “Brief on Cross-Appeal.”
    9. ____: ____. An appellate court may consider a party’s cross-appeal,
    even though the party’s brief violated Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(D)(4)
    (rev. 2014) requiring a separate section for a cross-appeal, where the
    form and presentation of the assignments of error in the party’s brief
    conformed with Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(D)(1) (rev. 2014), which
    applies to an appellant’s brief.
    Appeal from the County Court for Scotts Bluff County: Kris
    D. Mickey, Judge. Affirmed.
    Gretchen Traw, Deputy Scotts Bluff County Public Defender,
    for appellant.
    Rhonda R. Flower, of Law Office of Rhonda R. Flower, for
    appellee.
    Riedmann, Bishop, and Arterburn, Judges.
    Per Curiam.
    I. INTRODUCTION
    Steven S., Sr., appeals, and Jennette S. cross-appeals, from
    an order entered by the Scotts Bluff County Court, sitting
    as a juvenile court, which terminated their parental rights to
    their three minor children: Steven S., Jr. (Steven Jr.) (case No.
    A-18-1183), Aodhan S. (case No. A-18-1184), and Genevive S.
    (case No. A-18-1185). We consolidate these three appeals for
    disposition, and we affirm the order of the juvenile court.
    - 833 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    II. BACKGROUND
    1. Procedural Background
    Steven and Jennette are the natural parents of Steven Jr.,
    born in September 2005; Genevive, born in October 2011; and
    Aodhan, born in May 2013. Steven and Jennette are married,
    but by the time of the hearing on the State’s motions to termi-
    nate their parental rights, they were living separately.
    The current proceedings involving this family were initi-
    ated in October 2017. However, this is not the first time the
    family has been involved with either the juvenile court or the
    Department of Health and Human Services (the Department).
    In fact, the family has a lengthy history with the Department.
    In 2000, the Department was contacted twice regarding Steven
    and Jennette’s treatment of an older son, who is not a subject
    of the current proceedings. Both reports indicated that Steven
    and Jennette were neglecting the older son, who was then an
    infant, by failing to properly feed him, failing to bathe him,
    and failing to obtain necessary medical care for him. In 2001,
    Steven and Jennette’s older daughter, who is also not a subject
    of the current proceedings, was removed from their care after
    she was taken to the hospital and tested positive for opiates
    and marijuana. These children are no longer in the custody of
    Steven and Jennette.
    In 2006, the Department received a report that Steven and
    Jennette were neglecting Steven Jr., who was then 1 year old.
    The reporter indicated that the family home was “in a very bad
    state and [was] very dirty with cat and dog feces in the house.”
    In 2011, Steven and Jennette’s niece, who was living with
    them, reported that both Steven and Jennette were physically
    abusive to her. She had injuries consistent with her reports.
    Testimony from the termination hearing revealed that Steven
    was ultimately convicted of sexually abusing the niece and was
    jailed for 1 year.
    From 2013 to 2016, the Department received four additional
    reports regarding Steven and Jennette. Each of these reports
    - 834 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    indicated that Steven and Jennette were neglecting Steven Jr.,
    Genevive, and Aodhan by not bathing the children, not provid-
    ing a clean and safe home environment, and not obtaining nec-
    essary medical care for them. After each of these reports, the
    Department provided services to assist the family. In March
    2017, 6 months prior to the initiation of the current court pro-
    ceedings, the Department received another report regarding
    Steven and Jennette’s neglect of the children. This report indi-
    cated that Aodhan was not receiving necessary medical care
    and that the children smelled of urine and body odor.
    On October 6, 2017, the current proceedings were initi-
    ated when the State filed petitions alleging that Steven Jr.,
    Genevive, and Aodhan were within the meaning of Neb. Rev.
    Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) (Reissue 2016) due to the fault or habits
    of Steven and Jennette. We note that at the time the petitions
    were filed, the family was still receiving assistance from the
    Department based on previous issues of neglect.
    Also on October 6, 2017, the State filed motions asking
    that the children immediately be placed in the custody of the
    Department. In support of the motions, the State provided an
    affidavit authored by a deputy with the Scotts Bluff County
    sheriff’s office. The affidavit indicated that the deputy vis-
    ited the family home on October 6, after the Department had
    received another report regarding Steven and Jennette’s neglect
    of the children. The deputy stated that upon his arrival at the
    home, he “was almost immediately overwhelmed with the
    smell of ammonia, the source of which appeared to be cat
    urine.” The deputy observed numerous dirty dishes and dirty
    laundry scattered throughout the house. In addition, there were
    cat feces on the floor and on some of the laundry. The deputy
    indicated that “this [w]as one of the worst homes he has been
    in while working for the Sheriff’s Department.” The deputy
    believed that the children needed to be removed from the
    home for their safety. Ultimately, the juvenile court granted
    the State’s motions for temporary custody, placing the children
    in the custody of the Department and outside of Steven and
    - 835 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    Jennette’s home. The children have remained outside of their
    parents’ home since October 6.
    Subsequent to the State’s filing the original petitions, the
    State filed amended petitions on November 17, 2017. In the
    amended petitions, the State alleged that the children were at
    risk for harm because they lacked safe and sanitary housing
    and because Steven was currently incarcerated and unable to
    care for the children. Steven ultimately admitted that portion
    of the amended petition which alleged that the children were
    at risk for harm due to his continued incarceration. Jennette
    ultimately admitted that portion of the amended petition which
    alleged that the children were at risk for harm because she
    was not providing them with safe and sanitary living condi-
    tions. Given the parents’ admissions, the juvenile court found
    Steven Jr., Genevive, and Aodhan to be within the meaning of
    § 43-247(3)(a).
    A disposition hearing was held on January 9, 2018. We
    note that the record from this hearing reflects that Jennette
    was present at the hearing, but because she had been recently
    arrested and jailed, she appeared at the hearing “in custody.”
    Jennette had apparently been charged with child abuse; how-
    ever, the exact circumstances surrounding this charge are not
    discussed in our record. Steven was also present at the hearing,
    because he was no longer incarcerated.
    At the hearing, the juvenile court ordered that Steven and
    Jennette comply with the case plan recommended by the
    Department. That case plan included directives for both Steven
    and Jennette to participate in a psychological evaluation and
    a parenting assessment; to take steps to maintain a clean and
    safe home environment, including working with a family sup-
    port worker; and to attend supervised parenting time with the
    children and demonstrate age-appropriate supervision for each
    child. The Department indicated that prior to the hearing, both
    Steven and Jennette had participated in a psychological evalu-
    ation and a parenting assessment. The parties noted that they
    were awaiting the results of that testing.
    - 836 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    A review hearing was held in April 2018. At this hearing,
    Steven and Jennette were ordered to “follow the recommen-
    dations of the comprehensive parental capacity evaluations.”
    These recommendations included participating with individual
    and family counseling and medication management. A subse-
    quent review hearing was held in July 2018. At this hearing,
    the juvenile court changed the permanency goal from reuni-
    fication to adoption with a concurrent goal of reunification.
    Steven and Jennette were again ordered to comply with the
    Department’s case plan.
    On July 20, 2018, the State filed motions to terminate
    Steven’s and Jennette’s parental rights. In the motions, the
    State alleged that termination was appropriate pursuant to Neb.
    Rev. Stat. § 43-292(2), (6), and (9) (Reissue 2016). The State
    also alleged that termination of Steven’s and Jennette’s parental
    rights was in the best interests of the children.
    2. Termination Hearing Evidence
    A hearing on the termination motions was held on September
    27, 2018. At the hearing, the State called six witnesses to testify,
    including two Department caseworkers who had been assigned
    to the family’s case, the clinical psychologist who conducted a
    psychological evaluation and a parenting assessment for both
    Steven and Jennette, Genevive and Aodhan’s therapist, and
    Genevive and Aodhan’s foster mother. The State’s witnesses
    largely testified regarding Steven’s and Jennette’s failure to
    make any progress toward becoming appropriate parents for
    the children. Neither Steven nor Jennette fully took advantage
    of the rehabilitative services they were offered and ordered to
    complete. The witnesses also testified regarding the children’s
    severe behavioral problems and the progress the children have
    made while living apart from their parents in foster care. In
    addition to the State’s witnesses, Jennette called three wit-
    nesses to testify on her behalf. Each of these witnesses indi-
    cated that Jennette appeared to be an involved mother who had
    a bond with her children.
    - 837 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    (a) Evidence Regarding Steven
    As we mentioned above, in October 2017, when the cur-
    rent proceedings were initiated, Steven was in jail. Evidence
    in our record indicates that his incarceration was the result
    of being convicted of writing bad checks. When Steven was
    released, he lived with Jennette. However, at the July 2018
    review hearing, both Steven and Jennette testified that they
    were no longer living together. Jennette indicated that she told
    Steven to leave her home because he was not working and
    she no longer wanted to support him. Steven indicated that
    he was homeless and was sleeping in a tent which he pitched
    in various locations, including, on occasion, Jennette’s back-
    yard. Despite not having adequate housing for himself or for
    his children, Steven expressed that his primary desire was to
    obtain a vehicle.
    Steven was unemployed from the time of his release from
    jail through at least July 2018 when he obtained part-time
    employment. At the review hearing held in July, Steven testi-
    fied that although he had applied for various jobs, he struggled
    with finding employment that would accommodate his sched-
    uled visitation with the children. We note that by this time in
    the proceedings, Steven had visitation with the children only on
    weekends. The Department assisted both Steven and Jennette
    financially with such expenses as utilities, gas, and their tele-
    phones, but even with this assistance, they were unable to meet
    their own basic needs.
    During the pendency of the juvenile court proceedings,
    Steven failed to consistently participate with family support
    services. He also failed to demonstrate his participation in
    individual therapy, despite his reports that he started attending
    therapy in July 2018. The only service that Steven consistently
    took advantage of was supervised visitation with the children.
    However, the Department had concerns about statements made
    by Steven to the children during the visitation sessions. In
    addition, because of Steven’s and Jennette’s living situations,
    the visits never took place in their home. The visits with
    - 838 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    Genevive and Aodhan took place at a visitation center, and the
    visits with Steven Jr. took place in a motel room, because he
    had been placed in a foster home in Omaha, Nebraska.
    By the time of the termination hearing, Steven and Jennette
    saw their children every other weekend. They would have
    a visit with Genevive and Aodhan every other weekend and
    would have a visit with Steven Jr. on alternating weekends.
    Both of the Department caseworkers assigned to the case testi-
    fied that during visits with the children, Steven and Jennette
    failed to follow through with disciplining the children, despite
    their behaviors, and as a result, struggled to control the chil-
    dren. They also spent a great deal of time looking at their
    telephones instead of interacting with the children and were
    sometimes not fully prepared with everything necessary to
    care for the children. Steven had to be repeatedly prompted
    to change Aodhan’s diapers prior to the time he became potty
    trained. When asked, Steven and Jennette both indicated their
    belief that visits with the children were going well.
    The results of Steven’s psychological evaluation and par-
    enting assessment further indicated the deficiencies in his
    parenting abilities. Dr. Gage Stermensky, the clinical psy-
    chologist who performed the evaluations on Steven, testi-
    fied at the termination hearing that based upon the results
    of his evaluations, he believed that Steven currently lacked
    the ability to sufficiently care for his children. Stermensky
    testified that Steven suffered from bipolar disorder, antisocial
    personality disorder, and anxiety disorder. Antisocial person-
    ality disorder in particular can cause impulsivity and diffi-
    culty with being taught new skills or with being supervised.
    Furthermore, Stermensky said that Steven lacked insight into
    how his behaviors and actions impacted his children and that
    he lacked empathy for others and displayed an inability to
    meet his basic needs.
    Stermensky opined that Steven would benefit from both
    behavioral therapy and medication compliance. Steven
    informed Stermensky that he was not currently taking any
    - 839 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    medication because he could not afford to pay for the pre-
    scriptions. Stermensky indicated that there are programs avail-
    able which provide assistance with the cost of prescriptions
    for mental health issues. Stermensky testified that ultimately,
    Steven’s prognosis was “guarded” in that Stermensky had con-
    cerns about whether Steven would ever gain the capacity to be
    an appropriate parent. Such concerns included Steven’s lengthy
    history of involvement with the Department without any signif-
    icant or maintained improvements. Stermensky noted that even
    with the Department’s help, Steven was still unable to meet his
    own basic needs. And, Stermensky questioned whether Steven
    would ever be able to meet his children’s needs. Stermensky
    testified that given Steven’s history, he would need to demon-
    strate improvement over a lengthy period of time, rather than
    just for a few months, prior to any change in his status with
    regard to the children.
    There was evidence presented by the State’s witnesses regard-
    ing allegations that Steven either had sexually abused Genevive
    or was grooming her for such sexual abuse. Genevive’s foster
    mother, Susan M., testified that Genevive had disclosed mul-
    tiple instances of sexual abuse, including reports of Steven’s
    touching her with his penis and Jennette’s taking pictures of
    her when she was not wearing any clothes. Susan also testi-
    fied that Genevive displays sexualized behaviors, including
    masturbating “all the time.” Similarly, Genevive’s therapist,
    Mandy Price, testified at the termination hearing that Genevive
    had displayed sexualized behavior at school in addition to in
    her foster home. For example, Genevive wrote a letter to a
    high school football player expressing her desire to have a
    sexual relationship with him. Price testified that in her opinion,
    6-year-old Genevive was able to describe sexual intercourse
    at a level “probably above the normal developmental stage.”
    Genevive reported to Price, completely unprompted and “out
    of the blue,” that Steven had touched her on her bottom with
    his penis. When Genevive made this report, she asked Price
    not to tell anyone about this information and she said she did
    - 840 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    not want to disclose any further information about the incident.
    Price testified that she did not believe that Genevive’s disclo-
    sures were the result of anyone “coaching” her about what
    to say.
    While both Steven and Jennette denied the allegations of
    sexual abuse during the current proceedings, Jennette had pre-
    viously reported her own concerns about Steven’s relationship
    with Genevive. When Genevive was younger, Jennette took
    Genevive to the hospital with concerns that Steven was molest-
    ing her because he took too long to change her diapers. And,
    during a prior court proceeding, Jennette asked that Steven
    have only supervised visits with Genevive because of concerns
    that he was sexually abusing her. Moreover, as we noted above,
    Steven had previously been convicted of sexually abusing his
    young niece.
    (b) Evidence Regarding Jennette
    The children were initially removed from the family home
    due to its unsanitary and unsafe condition. Throughout the pro-
    ceedings, Jennette had made some efforts to improve the home;
    however, by the time of the termination hearing, the condition
    of the home remained an issue. Jennette did pay to fix some
    of the subflooring in the home, to fix water damage present
    on the ceiling, and to build an enclosed porch. However, a
    “[v]ery potent” smell still existed in the home. The most recent
    Department caseworker, Abbie Wiebesiek, described the smell
    as consisting of “cat urine [and] old garbage.” In addition, in
    February and March 2018, there was no electricity in the home
    and it was very cold. Wiebesiek testified that she had not vis-
    ited the home since June because Jennette was no longer being
    cooperative about allowing her to walk through the home. In
    fact, Jennette essentially cut off contact with the Department in
    June after she was informed that the State was seeking termina-
    tion of her parental rights.
    Additionally, there was evidence that Jennette had a boyfriend
    who appeared to be living at her home. Jennette acknowledged
    - 841 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    that Steven Jr. did not like her boyfriend. There was also
    evidence that the boyfriend was “aggressive” toward Steven
    Jr. and regularly used marijuana. Wiebesiek indicated that
    there was a “strange relationship dynamic” between Jennette,
    Steven, and Jennette’s boyfriend.
    Jennette acquired full-time employment in March 2018.
    Around this same time, she worked with family support to
    establish a budget for her monthly income so that she could
    pay for improvements to the family’s home, help pay for travel
    to Omaha to visit Steven Jr., and save for the future. However,
    in July 2018, Jennette voluntarily terminated her employment,
    with no explanation. Jennette lied to the Department for the
    next 3 months about her employment status—she continued to
    report that she was employed, when she was not.
    Jennette attended visitations with her children on a fairly
    consistent basis. However, as we discussed above, Jennette’s
    behavior during the visitations was not always appropriate.
    She and Steven struggled to control the children, failed to con-
    sistently discipline them, and spent a great deal of time look-
    ing at their telephones. In addition to this behavior, Jennette
    would often speak with the children about inappropriate topics,
    including her relationship with Steven and the problems they
    were having as a couple.
    Stermensky, who also completed a psychological evalua­
    tion and parenting assessment on Jennette, testified that
    she currently lacked the ability to sufficiently care for her
    children. Stermensky indicated that Jennette suffered from
    schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. He explained that this
    disorder can cause disorganized thinking, a diminished abil-
    ity to meet hygienic needs, manic and depressive episodes,
    and hallucinations. In addition, Jennette reported having poor
    coping skills and amplified psychosis and decompensation
    when she is experiencing a stressful situation. Stermensky
    indicated that Jennette did not recognize the full extent of her
    mental health symptoms or how those symptoms impacted the
    home environment.
    - 842 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    Stermensky believed that medication compliance and therapy
    could mitigate Jennette’s symptoms significantly and improve
    her ability to effectively parent her children. However, dur-
    ing her evaluation, Jennette told Stermensky that she had not
    “liked” the medications so she had stopped taking them. As
    a result, Jennette had not had any treatment for her disor-
    der in an extended period of time. Stermensky recommended
    that Jennette engage in a long-term treatment program and
    that her visitation with the children be limited to therapeu-
    tic interactions.
    Ultimately, Stermensky had serious concerns about Jennette’s
    ability to gain the capacity needed to effectively parent her
    children. He noted that Jennette had been receiving assistance
    from the Department for quite some time, but had been unable
    to show any marked improvement in her parenting abilities.
    Stermensky stated, “The best predictor of, you know, future
    behavior is past behavior.” He also noted that he had concerns
    about Jennette’s relationship with her boyfriend and how that
    relationship may affect her ability to parent. Stermensky indi-
    cated that Jennette may allow individuals to be a part of her
    and her children’s lives, even when that would not be in the
    children’s best interests.
    Evidence in the record indicated that after Jennette’s eval­
    uations with Stermensky, she affirmatively stated that she was
    participating in individual counseling. However, she failed to
    ever provide proof of her attendance. In addition, there was no
    evidence to indicate that she was taking any medication for her
    mental health problems. The record also indicated that by the
    time of the termination hearing, Jennette was reporting that she
    was pregnant again.
    Jennette called three of her own witnesses to testify at the
    termination hearing. Two of these witnesses were workers
    who had visited the family’s home to assist with the chil-
    dren’s education and behavioral issues, prior to the children’s
    removal in October 2017. Each of these witnesses testified
    that Jennette was very involved with the assistance programs
    - 843 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    and was cooperative with their efforts. The witnesses testified
    that all of the children appeared bonded with Jennette. Each
    of the witnesses also indicated that the family’s home had a
    strong smell and that keeping the home clean and sanitary was
    something that had to be addressed on more than one occasion.
    Jennette’s third witness was a visitation worker who observed
    Jennette with Genevive and Aodhan after their removal. This
    witness testified that Jennette had demonstrated positive par-
    enting skills and that the two younger children appeared to be
    bonded to Jennette. The witness also indicated that he had seen
    an improvement in the visits over time—the visits were calmer
    and the children were listening better and fighting less.
    (c) Evidence Regarding Children’s
    Behavioral Issues
    The State presented evidence focused on the children’s
    behavioral issues and the improvements they have made while
    living in foster care. Steven Jr. has been diagnosed with Sturge-
    Weber syndrome, which causes seizures, developmental delays,
    and lower cognitive functioning. When the children were ini-
    tially removed from Steven and Jennette’s home in October
    2017, they were all placed in the same foster home with Susan.
    Susan testified at the termination hearing that when Steven Jr.
    first arrived at her home, he had “[a] lot” of specialized needs.
    He would have “fits” if he did not get his way. Although he
    was 12 years old, he would still have accidents by urinating
    on himself. In addition, he was violent toward Genevive and
    Aodhan, hitting, kicking, and pinching them. He also threat-
    ened to harm everyone in his foster home. Susan described
    Steven Jr. as functioning more at the level of a 5 or 6 year old
    than a 12 year old. He was unable to meet any of his basic
    needs. Almost immediately after being placed in Susan’s home,
    Steven Jr. needed to be hospitalized as a result of his seizures
    and the need to regulate his antiseizure medication.
    After a month with Susan, Steven Jr. moved to a more
    specialized foster home in Omaha. Since his move, he had
    - 844 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    made some improvements in his behavior, but he continued
    to be “very easily frustrated” and to have accidents where he
    urinated or defecated on himself. These problems were particu-
    larly prevalent both during and after Steven Jr.’s visits with his
    parents. Steven Jr.’s foster mother in Omaha enrolled Steven
    Jr. in special education classes and was working with him on
    learning to read.
    In addition to the sexualized behavior exhibited by Genevive,
    she was described as being bossy, controlling, and untruthful.
    While Genevive had made improvements in her behavior dur-
    ing her time in foster care, she struggled after visits with her
    parents. Genevive had nightmares for 3 or 4 days after every
    visit. During these nightmares, she would wake up screaming.
    Genevive described these nightmares to Price, indicating that
    in the dreams Jennette would appear as a “monster” or would
    be “shooting people.” Price testified that the consistency and
    regularity of the nightmares was concerning.
    At the time of his removal in October 2017, Aodhan was
    4 years old, but was not yet potty trained and was unable to
    speak well. Susan testified that Aodhan’s behavior was “hor-
    rible.” He reacted physically when he was told “no,” includ-
    ing biting, hitting, kicking, and scratching. He called people
    derogatory names but, in other respects, he still acted younger
    than his age. Susan testified that Aodhan was also abusive to
    animals. She caught him attempting to drown one of the fam-
    ily’s puppies and a couple of their cats. Price, who also acted
    as Aodhan’s therapist for a few months, diagnosed him as suf-
    fering from an adjustment disorder.
    In the time Aodhan had been in foster care, Susan testified
    that his behaviors had improved. She said he was calmer, was
    less physical when angry, and accepted discipline and redirec-
    tion. In fact, Price testified that she decreased the frequency of
    Aodhan’s therapy visits. However, after visits with his parents,
    Aodhan would “fight[]” in his sleep and ask to sleep with his
    foster father for comfort. In addition, he would regress in his
    - 845 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    potty training, be more violent, use inappropriate language, and
    revert to acting younger than his age.
    3. Juvenile Court’s Order
    On December 14, 2018, the juvenile court entered an order
    terminating Steven’s and Jennette’s parental rights to Steven
    Jr., Genevive, and Aodhan. The court found that the State had
    proved that termination of Steven’s and Jennette’s parental
    rights was warranted pursuant to § 43-292(2) and (6) and that
    termination was in the children’s best interests. In the order, the
    court found:
    [I]n these cases, the system has run out of reasonable
    options and the prospects are dim that additional time
    will be of any benefit. Both parents have shown they are
    unwilling or incapable of rehabilitating themselves in the
    foreseeable future to properly parent these children. The
    system cannot and should not allow children to languish
    in foster care waiting to see if a parent will mature.
    The court also specifically found “clear and convincing evi-
    dence exists that the parental circumstances and conditions at
    issue in these cases are long-standing and have existed over
    the course of many years.” Additionally, while the court noted
    that the parents’ efforts to consistently participate in supervised
    visitations with their children during the pendency of the pro-
    ceedings was “commendable,” the court ultimately found that
    “being a parent requires more than attending every other week-
    end visitations and necessitates acquiring the wherewithal to
    be a consistent, positive presence for a child’s everyday basic
    needs, something far different than the parenting described in
    these cases.”
    Steven appeals, and Jennette cross-appeals, from the juve-
    nile court’s order.
    III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
    On appeal, Steven alleges that the juvenile court erred in
    finding that there was sufficient evidence to prove (1) the
    - 846 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    relevant statutory grounds for termination of his parental rights
    and (2) that termination of his parental rights was in the chil-
    dren’s best interests.
    On cross-appeal, Jennette also alleges that the juvenile court
    erred in finding that there was sufficient evidence to prove (1)
    the relevant statutory grounds for termination of her parental
    rights and (2) that termination of her parental rights was in the
    children’s best interests.
    IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
    [1] An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on
    the record and reaches its conclusions independently of the
    juvenile court’s findings. In re Interest of Ryder J., 
    283 Neb. 318
    , 
    809 N.W.2d 255
    (2012). When the evidence is in conflict,
    however, an appellate court may give weight to the fact that the
    lower court observed the witnesses and accepted one version of
    the facts over the other. 
    Id. V. ANALYSIS
                           1. Steven’s Appeal
    (a) Statutory Factors
    [2] The bases for termination of parental rights in Nebraska
    are codified in § 43-292. Section 43-292 provides 11 separate
    conditions, any one of which can serve as the basis for the
    termination of parental rights when coupled with evidence
    that termination is in the best interests of the child. In re
    Interest of Sir Messiah T. et al., 
    279 Neb. 900
    , 
    782 N.W.2d 320
    (2010).
    In its order terminating Steven’s parental rights to Steven
    Jr., Genevive, and Aodhan, the juvenile court found that the
    State had presented clear and convincing evidence to satisfy
    § 43-292(2) and (6). The relevant portions of § 43-292 provide
    as follows:
    The court may terminate all parental rights . . . when
    the court finds such action to be in the best interests of
    - 847 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    the juvenile and it appears by the evidence that one or
    more of the following conditions exist:
    ....
    (2) The parents have substantially and continuously or
    repeatedly neglected and refused to give the juvenile or a
    sibling of the juvenile necessary parental care and protec-
    tion; [and]
    ....
    (6) Following a determination that the juvenile is one
    as described in subdivision (3)(a) of section 43-247,
    reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify the family if
    required under section 43-283.01, under the direction of
    the court, have failed to correct the conditions leading to
    the determination.
    [3] In his brief on appeal, Steven asserts that the juvenile
    court erred in finding that termination of his parental rights
    was warranted pursuant to § 43-292(2) or (6). Contrary to
    Steven’s assertions, upon our de novo review of the record, we
    find that the State presented clear and convincing evidence to
    prove that termination of Steven’s parental rights to his three
    children was warranted pursuant to § 43-292(2). The evidence
    presented at the termination hearing revealed that Steven had
    failed to provide his children with necessary parental care and
    protection for a significant period of time. Additionally, Steven
    had failed to put himself in a position to achieve reunifica-
    tion after his children were removed from his care. A parent’s
    failure to provide an environment to which his or her children
    can return can establish substantial, continual, and repeated
    neglect. See In re Interest of Joseph S. et al., 
    291 Neb. 953
    ,
    
    870 N.W.2d 141
    (2015).
    Steven’s children, Steven Jr., Genevive, and Aodhan,
    were placed in the custody of the Department and outside of
    Steven’s home for approximately 10 months prior to the time
    the State filed its motion to terminate Steven’s parental rights
    in July 2018. During that 10 months, Steven failed to obtain
    appropriate housing. While he initially resided in the family
    - 848 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    home with Jennette, by the time of the termination hearing,
    he was homeless. He lived in a tent and traveled from back-
    yard to backyard. Despite his tenuous living situation, Steven
    remained unemployed through July 2018, when the motion
    to terminate his parental rights was filed. And, although he
    had obtained some employment, it was only part-time work.
    Steven had expressed to the Department caseworkers that his
    primary goal was to obtain a vehicle, not a house. According to
    the Department caseworkers who worked with Steven, he had
    demonstrated that he was incapable of providing for even his
    own basic needs. As such, it was clear that he was not capable
    of providing for the extensive needs of his children, who,
    because of their behavioral issues, need a great deal of routine
    and structure.
    Also during the 10 months prior to the filing of the motion
    to terminate his parental rights, Steven failed to participate
    in individual therapy and failed to demonstrate compliance
    with necessary medication management for his mental health
    issues. Stermensky opined that without such intervention,
    Steven would remain incapable of being an appropriate parent
    to his children. Steven also did not take full advantage of the
    family support worker available to assist him in meeting his
    basic needs.
    Even when Steven was physically present with the children
    during visitations, he often neglected their needs. Evidence pre-
    sented at the termination hearing revealed that Steven needed
    to be prompted to change Aodhan’s diapers. He also failed to
    bring necessary supplies to visitations and spent a great deal
    of time looking at his telephone, rather than engaging with
    his children.
    In our review of the record, we find sufficient evidence to
    demonstrate that, notwithstanding Steven’s release from jail,
    his circumstances have remained virtually unchanged from the
    time of the children’s removal in October 2017 to the time the
    State filed its motion to terminate his rights in July 2018. In
    fact, in some respects, Steven’s circumstances have declined
    - 849 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    since October 2017. He had made virtually no progress toward
    becoming an adequate parent for his children, despite the
    efforts of the Department and the juvenile court. Moreover,
    we note that Steven had a lengthy history of involvement
    with the Department and the juvenile court, but he had not
    yet demonstrated an ability to maintain any sort of long-term
    progress toward becoming an adequate parent even with years
    of assistance. Steven had not demonstrated that he could pro-
    vide the children with the stability that they so desperately
    need. Steven had simply failed to provide an environment
    to which his children could return, and he had substantially,
    continuously, and repeatedly neglected Steven Jr., Genevive,
    and Aodhan.
    Upon our de novo review of the record, we agree with the
    juvenile court’s finding that the State presented sufficient evi-
    dence to demonstrate that Steven had substantially and contin-
    uously or repeatedly neglected and refused to give Steven Jr.,
    Genevive, and Aodhan necessary parental care and protection
    pursuant to § 43-292(2). We find that the juvenile court did not
    err in finding that termination of Steven’s parental rights was
    warranted pursuant to § 43-292(2).
    [4] If an appellate court determines that the lower court
    correctly found that termination of parental rights is appropri-
    ate 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 Justin H. et al., 
    18 Neb. Ct. App. 718
    ,
    
    791 N.W.2d 765
    (2010). Therefore, this court need not review
    termination under § 43-292(6).
    Once a statutory basis for termination has been proved, the
    next inquiry is whether termination of parental rights is in the
    children’s best interests.
    (b) Best Interests
    [5-7] Under § 43-292, once the State shows that statutory
    grounds for termination of parental rights exist, the State
    - 850 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    must then show that termination is in the best interests of the
    child. In re Interest of Ryder J., 
    283 Neb. 318
    , 
    809 N.W.2d 255
    (2012). A child’s best interests are presumed to be served
    by having a relationship with his or her parent. In re Interest
    of Isabel P. et al., 
    293 Neb. 62
    , 
    875 N.W.2d 848
    (2016). This
    presumption is overcome only when the State has proved that
    the parent is unfit. 
    Id. In the
    context of the constitutionally
    protected relationship between a parent and a child, parental
    unfitness means a personal deficiency or incapacity which has
    prevented, or will probably prevent, performance of a reason-
    able parental obligation in child rearing and which has caused,
    or probably will result in, detriment to a child’s well-being.
    
    Id. The best
    interests analysis and the parental fitness analysis
    are fact-intensive inquiries. 
    Id. And while
    both are separate
    inquiries, each examines essentially the same underlying facts
    as the other. 
    Id. In his
    brief on appeal, Steven argues that the State failed
    to present sufficient evidence to prove that termination of his
    parental rights was in the children’s best interests. He asserts
    that the evidence presented at the termination hearing revealed
    that he had a “strong bond” with his children and that his
    relationship with them was “beneficial.” Brief for appellant at
    19. Upon our de novo review of the record, we cannot agree
    with Steven’s characterization of the evidence presented at the
    termination hearing. While there was limited evidence which
    suggested that the children enjoyed visits with Steven, the
    overwhelming evidence demonstrated that Steven’s relation-
    ship with the children was harmful to them, and certainly
    not beneficial.
    As we discussed more thoroughly above, each of the chil-
    dren have rather significant behavioral issues. During the
    pendency of these proceedings while the children resided
    in foster care, many of the children’s behaviors improved
    or disappeared. However, whenever the children had visits
    with their parents, the children regressed and their behaviors
    - 851 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    worsened. Steven Jr. would urinate or defecate on himself
    either during or immediately after his visits with his parents.
    Genevive would have nightmares for 3 or 4 days after each
    visit. Similarly, Aodhan would struggle to sleep after visits.
    He would “fight[]” in his sleep and ask to sleep with his foster
    father for comfort. In addition, Aodhan would act out more
    after visits, including acting younger than his age and using
    inappropriate language. The children’s negative reactions to
    visits coupled with the recommendations of the profession-
    als involved with this case resulted in Steven’s visitation with
    the children never transitioning from fully supervised visits.
    Moreover, by the end of the proceedings, Steven was still only
    seeing his children every other weekend. We agree with the
    juvenile court’s statement that being a parent requires more
    than attending brief visitations with the children every other
    weekend. Such limited time with the children does little to
    demonstrate either Steven’s parenting abilities or the strength
    of his bond with his children.
    Throughout the proceedings, Steven demonstrated an unwill-
    ingness or an inability to take steps toward improving his hous-
    ing situation, his financial circumstances, or his mental health.
    As a result of Steven’s failure to make any progress on these
    goals, he was no closer to achieving reunification with his
    children than he was at the start of the proceedings in October
    2017. At the termination hearing, Wiebesiek testified that ter-
    mination of Steven’s parental rights was in the children’s best
    interests for multiple reasons:
    For lack of case plan progress and continued concerns
    with sexual abuse. [Steven has] had two other children
    removed from the home that have been adopted. There’s
    been prior investigations throughout every child’s life,
    including one that wasn’t [Steven’s] own child. There
    ha[s] been a criminal charge of the sexual abuse for
    another child.
    ....
    - 852 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    [There has been no] [f]inancial and housing stabil-
    ity and [Steven is unable] to meet [Steven Jr.’s] needs
    especially.
    Wiebesiek also testified that Steven had not demonstrated any
    consistent progress or stability.
    Based upon our review of the record, we agree with
    Wiebesiek’s testimony that termination of Steven’s parental
    rights was in all three children’s best interests. The children
    should no longer have to wait for Steven to put them ahead
    of his own needs and wants. They should no longer have to
    wait for Steven to decide to make improvements to his current
    situation. The evidence presented revealed that Steven was
    not a fit parent for his children and that he was not capable
    of becoming a fit parent any time in the near future. The chil-
    dren need, and deserve, permanency. As such, we affirm the
    decision of the juvenile court which found that termination of
    Steven’s parental rights was in Steven Jr.’s, Genevive’s, and
    Aodhan’s best interests.
    2. Jennette’s Cross-Appeal
    At the outset, we note that Jennette failed to comply with
    the rules regarding cross-appeals. See Neb. Ct. R. App. P.
    § 2-109(D)(4) (rev. 2014). Steven was the first party to file a
    notice of appeal, and therefore, he was the appellant. However,
    pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-101(C) (rev. 2015), once
    a notice of appeal is filed, all other parties become appellees
    and can file a cross-appeal. Here, Jennette properly designated
    herself as an appellee and as a cross-appellant when she filed a
    “BRIEF OF APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT.”
    [8] As a cross-appellant, Jennette was required to comply
    with the rules on cross-appeals, including the requirement
    that she designate on the cover of her brief that it is a cross-
    appeal, and set forth her cross-appeal in a separate division of
    the brief entitled “Brief on Cross-Appeal.” See § 2-109(D)(4).
    On her brief’s cover, Jennette does not specifically indicate
    that the brief contains a cross-appeal; however, she does title
    - 853 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    her brief as “BRIEF OF APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT,
    JENNETTE S[.]” Other than the cover, Jennette prepared her
    brief as though she was an appellant, and while it does not
    conform to § 2-109(D)(4) (“shall be set forth in a separate
    division of the brief” entitled “Brief on Cross-Appeal”), it is
    prepared consistent with § 2-109(D)(1) (requirements for brief
    of appellant). Given Jennette’s failure to fully comply with
    § 2-109(D)(4), we must determine whether her brief suffi-
    ciently complies with our appellate court rules in order for this
    court to consider her assigned errors or, alternatively, whether
    we should limit our examination of the record for plain error
    only or provide no review at all. See, e.g., In re Interest of
    Justine J. & Sylissa J., 
    288 Neb. 607
    , 
    849 N.W.2d 509
    (2014)
    (holding that where brief of party fails to comply with mandate
    of § 2-109(D), appellate court may proceed as though party
    failed to file brief or, alternatively, may examine proceedings
    for plain error). We conclude that Jennette’s brief has complied
    with the rules for an appellant’s brief which seeks affirma-
    tive relief, and the cover of her brief states she is a “CROSS
    APPELLANT,” thus notifying this court from the outset that
    she is seeking affirmative relief. Her notification that affirma-
    tive relief is being sought is critical to our decision, as we
    discuss next.
    Recently, in In re Interest of Becka P. et al., ante p. 489,
    
    933 N.W.2d 873
    (2019), this court considered the arguments
    of an appellee and cross-appellant, despite the lack of full
    compliance with § 2-109(D)(4). In In re Interest of Becka P.
    et al., the juvenile court terminated the parental rights of both
    parents. The father filed the only notice of appeal and was thus
    the appellant. This court noted that all other parties became
    appellees and could file a cross-appeal. The mother filed a
    “‘Brief of Appellee on Cross Appeal,’” but otherwise, pre-
    pared her brief in the form of an appellant’s brief and did not
    separately respond to the father’s appellant’s brief other than
    to accept his statement of the basis of jurisdiction and state-
    ment of the case. In re Interest of Becka P. et al., ante at 511,
    - 854 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    933 N.W.2d at 889. This court stated: “Although [the moth-
    er’s] brief violates the portion of the rule requiring a separate
    section for a cross-appeal, because the form and presentation
    of her assignments of error conform with the rules applicable
    to an appellant’s brief, we may consider the arguments raised
    in her brief.” 
    Id. at 513,
    933 N.W.2d at 890. In support, this
    court cited to Knaub v. Knaub, 
    245 Neb. 172
    , 
    512 N.W.2d 124
    (1994) (appellee designated himself on cover of brief as
    appellant rather than as appellee/cross-appellant), and In re
    Application A-16642, 
    236 Neb. 671
    , 
    463 N.W.2d 591
    (1990)
    (appellees designated themselves on cover of briefs as appel-
    lants rather than as appellees and cross-appellants).
    In Knaub v. 
    Knaub, supra
    , an ex-husband sought to modify
    child support and alimony; the district court dismissed his
    action and assessed attorney fees against the ex-husband and
    his attorney based on the action being frivolous. The attorney
    filed the first notice of appeal in his own behalf (challeng-
    ing sanctions), followed by the ex-husband filing a notice
    of appeal. The Nebraska Supreme Court pointed out that
    the attorney became the appellant and that the ex-husband
    was thus an appellee. The Supreme Court observed that the
    ex-husband
    failed to designate his brief as a cross-appeal and failed
    to set forth a separate section within his brief titled
    “Brief on Cross-Appeal.” Although this violates our rule
    regarding the presentation of a cross-appeal, the form
    and presentation of [the ex-husband’s] assignments of
    error conform with the rules applicable to an appel-
    lant’s brief.
    
    Id. at 175-76,
    512 N.W.2d at 127. The Supreme Court proceeded
    to consider the ex-husband’s arguments raised in his brief.
    In In re Interest of Becka P. et 
    al., supra
    , this court also dis-
    tinguished In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra H., 
    258 Neb. 131
    , 
    602 N.W.2d 439
    (1999), and In re Interest of Chloe P., 
    21 Neb. Ct. App. 456
    , 
    840 N.W.2d 549
    (2013); both cases involved
    juvenile court proceedings from which each parent appealed
    - 855 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    from a final order. In In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra 
    H., 258 Neb. at 144
    , 602 N.W.2d at 450, the father was the second
    parent to file a notice of appeal; he titled his brief as “‘Brief of
    Appellee.’” The Supreme Court noted that the father was “not
    merely resisting the claims of the appellant,” but was “seeking
    affirmative relief.” In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra 
    H., 258 Neb. at 144
    , 602 N.W.2d at 450. The Supreme Court cited
    to several cases for the proposition that a cross-appeal must
    be properly designated if affirmative relief is to be obtained,
    but also cited to Knaub v. 
    Knaub, supra
    , and In re Application
    
    A-16642, supra
    , as cases where it had considered assigned
    errors even though the appellee or cross-appellant had “mis-
    takenly” designated themselves as appellants. In re Interest
    of Natasha H. & Sierra 
    H., 258 Neb. at 145
    , 602 N.W.2d at
    450. The Supreme Court stated that the factor distinguish-
    ing Knaub v. 
    Knaub, supra
    , and In re Application 
    A-16642, supra
    , from the case before it was that in those two cases “a
    party who was an appellee and should have cross-appealed
    mistakenly designated itself as an appellant, rather than as a
    cross-appellant,” whereas in the case before it, “the party that
    should have cross-appealed designated itself as an appellee,
    yet still sought affirmative relief.” In re Interest of Natasha H.
    & Sierra 
    H., 258 Neb. at 146
    , 602 N.W.2d at 451. The court
    went on to state:
    In short, the appellate courts of this state have always
    refused to consider a prayer for affirmative relief where
    such a claim is raised in a brief designated as that of an
    appellee. We have, in the past, decided to entertain a pro-
    cedurally defective cross-appeal only where such cross-
    appeal has been mistakenly asserted as an appellant’s
    brief. Even this is a matter left solely to the discretion of
    the courts and does not imply a willingness to consider
    such defective appeals in the future.
    Parties wishing to secure appellate review of their
    claims for relief must be aware of, and abide by, the rules
    of this court and the Court of Appeals in presenting such
    - 856 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    claims. Any party who fails to properly identify and pre­
    sent its claim does so at its peril. See State v. Woods, 
    255 Neb. 755
    , 
    587 N.W.2d 122
    (1998). [The father] has not
    complied with the rules of this court in the instant case,
    and we decline to waive those rules on his behalf.
    In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra 
    H., 258 Neb. at 146
    -47,
    602 N.W.2d at 451 (emphasis supplied).
    In In re Interest of Chloe 
    P., 21 Neb. Ct. App. at 470
    , 840
    N.W.2d at 560, the father was the second to file a notice of
    appeal and he titled his brief as “‘Brief of Appellee.’” Although
    the father assigned errors and sought affirmative relief, he did
    not designate a cross-appeal on the cover of his brief, nor did
    he set forth a separate division of the brief designated as a
    cross-appeal. Relying on In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra
    
    H., supra
    , this court declined to waive the rules and address
    the father’s assigned errors (noting, however, that the father’s
    assigned error challenging the juvenile court’s adjudication
    order was addressed in the section responding to the mother’s
    assigned error on the same issue).
    The key distinction in the above-cited cases is whether the
    cover and content of the brief puts an appellate court on notice
    that a party is seeking affirmative relief, whether identify-
    ing as an appellant or a cross-appellant. Designation only as
    an appellee does not provide such notification. Further, if an
    appellee and cross-appellant’s position aligns with the appel-
    lant’s position, as is often the case in juvenile court adjudica-
    tions and parental termination cases, there is usually no reason
    to separately respond as an appellee. Thus, if the cover of a
    brief is sufficiently labeled to put the appellate court on notice
    that affirmative relief is being sought, the absence of a sepa-
    rately divided section in the brief designated “Brief on Cross-
    Appeal” may not necessarily preclude full review so long as
    there is compliance with the rules pertinent to the content of an
    appellant’s brief. See § 2-109(D). However, if an appellee and
    cross-appellant does respond to an appellant’s assigned errors,
    a separately divided section titled “Brief on Cross-Appeal”
    - 857 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    would be necessary. We caution, however, that while an appel-
    late court may decide to waive strict adherence to the briefing
    rules under such circumstances, it is not required to do so. As
    indicated earlier, a party who fails to comply with the appel-
    late court rules does so at his or her peril. See In re Interest
    of Natasha H. & Sierra H., 
    258 Neb. 131
    , 
    602 N.W.2d 439
    (1999). Depending on the particulars of each case, failure to
    comply with the mandate of § 2-109(D) may result in an appel-
    late court proceeding as though the party failed to file a brief
    or, alternatively, proceeding on a plain error review only. See In
    re Interest of Justine J. & Sylissa J., 
    288 Neb. 607
    , 
    849 N.W.2d 509
    (2014).
    [9] In the present matter, Jennette, like the mother in In re
    Interest of Becka P. et al., ante p. 489, 
    933 N.W.2d 873
    (2019),
    noted her desire to cross-appeal from the juvenile court’s
    decision by her designation as “CROSS APPELLANT” on
    the cover of her brief. Jennette also properly assigned errors
    and raised her arguments on appeal in a manner consistent
    with the requirements for an appellant’s brief as provided in
    § 2-109(D)(1). As in In re Interest of Becka P. et al., Jennette
    did not include a separately divided section titled “Brief on
    Cross-Appeal” because she did not respond to the arguments
    raised by the appellant as would typically be seen in an appel-
    lee’s brief. Accordingly, we conclude Jennette sufficiently put
    this court on notice that she was seeking affirmative relief by
    designating herself as a cross-appellant on the cover of her
    brief and preparing it in compliance with § 2-109(D)(1); we
    therefore waive the requirement that the cross-appeal be set
    forth in a separate section of the brief when no appellee’s brief
    responding to the appellant’s arguments is filed. An appellate
    court may consider a party’s cross-appeal, even though the
    party’s brief violated § 2-109(D)(4) requiring a separate sec-
    tion for a cross-appeal, where the form and presentation of
    the assignments of error in the party’s brief conformed with
    § 2-109(D)(1), which applies to an appellant’s brief.
    We now consider the errors assigned in Jennette’s brief.
    - 858 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    (a) Statutory Factors
    Jennette asserts that the juvenile court erred in finding that
    termination of her parental rights was warranted pursuant to
    § 43-292(2) or (6). Contrary to Jennette’s assertions, upon our
    de novo review of the record, we find that the State presented
    clear and convincing evidence to prove that termination of
    Jennette’s parental rights to her three children was warranted
    pursuant to § 43-292(2). As in our analysis of Steven’s chal-
    lenge to the statutory factors to support termination of his
    parental rights, we find that the evidence presented at the hear-
    ing revealed that Jennette had failed to provide her children
    with necessary parental care and protection for a significant
    period of time. She had also failed to put herself in a position
    to achieve reunification after her children were removed from
    her care.
    During the 10 months the children were placed outside of
    Jennette’s care, she failed to adequately renovate her home.
    By the time of the termination hearing, the home remained
    unsafe, unsanitary, and inappropriate for the children. There
    was evidence that Jennette had made efforts to fix the prob-
    lems with the home, and at one point, she was even setting
    aside money in her budget to make renovations. However,
    Jennette’s efforts in this regard seemed to taper off during the
    summer of 2018, when Jennette voluntarily terminated her
    employment for an unknown reason. Without a steady stream
    of income, it was unclear how Jennette planned to maintain
    and renovate the home so that it could be made appropriate
    for the children.
    Additionally, there was evidence presented at the hearing
    that Jennette’s boyfriend was either living with her at her
    home or was present at the home often. There was also evi-
    dence that the children did not like Jennette’s boyfriend and
    that the boyfriend had been “aggressive” toward Steven Jr.
    Jennette’s choice to continue to have her boyfriend in her life
    and in her home despite the objections of both her children
    and the Department was concerning, especially in light of
    - 859 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    Stermensky’s belief that Jennette may allow individuals to be a
    part of her and her children’s lives, even when that would not
    be in the children’s best interests.
    Also during the 10 months prior to the filing of the motion
    to terminate her parental rights, Jennette failed to demonstrate
    compliance with any sort of mental health treatment plan. She
    indicated to Stermensky that she was unwilling to take neces-
    sary medications. She also failed to prove that she was attend-
    ing individual therapy. Stermensky indicated that medication
    compliance and therapy could improve Jennette’s ability to
    effectively parent her children. Her failure to take advantage
    of the treatment available to her demonstrated an unwilling-
    ness to make improvements in her own life for the sake of
    her children.
    Perhaps because of her ongoing mental health problems,
    Jennette had demonstrated a long-term inability to care for
    her children’s basic needs, including their medical care. Both
    Steven Jr. and Aodhan suffered from significant physical
    ailments while in Jennette’s custody, and the Department
    became involved with the family multiple times as a result of
    Jennette’s failure to obtain necessary medical care and failure
    to keep the children clean and safe. Despite the years of assist­
    ance provided to Jennette by the Department, she failed to
    demonstrate any sustained improvement in either her parent-
    ing skills or her ability to maintain a sanitary and safe home
    environment. Moreover, evidence presented at the hearing
    revealed that Jennette had previously had her parental rights
    to two older children terminated as a result of her neglect of
    their needs.
    During the pendency of the current court proceedings,
    Jennette attended visitation with the children on a regular
    basis. However, as was the case with Steven, Jennette did
    not always act appropriately during the visits. She routinely
    discussed inappropriate topics with the children. She was
    often unable to control the children’s behaviors and provided
    inconsistent discipline. She did not give the children her full
    - 860 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    attention, even during the limited opportunities she had to
    see them.
    As the termination hearing approached, Jennette stopped
    cooperating with the Department and its attempts to assist her.
    Jennette lied to her caseworker about quitting her job. Jennette
    pretended to be employed for months after she left her job.
    Jennette also stopped letting the caseworker visit her home.
    In both January and February 2018, Jennette was jailed on
    charges of child abuse.
    In our review of the record, we find sufficient evidence to
    demonstrate that Jennette made very little progress toward
    reunification with her children from the time of their removal
    in October 2017 to the time the State filed its motion to ter-
    minate her parental rights in July 2018. Jennette had demon-
    strated an inability to provide the children with safety and
    stability. She could not provide them with safe and appropriate
    housing. She was not employed. She had chosen to live with
    someone who did not have a positive relationship with the
    children. Moreover, despite the numerous services offered to
    Jennette by the Department, both during the current proceed-
    ings and over the last decade, Jennette had demonstrated an
    unwillingness to take the necessary steps to improve her par-
    enting abilities.
    Upon our de novo review of the record, we agree with the
    juvenile court’s finding that the State presented sufficient evi-
    dence to demonstrate that Jennette had substantially and con-
    tinuously or repeatedly neglected and refused to give Steven
    Jr., Genevive, and Aodhan necessary parental care and protec-
    tion pursuant to § 43-292(2). As such, we turn to our analysis
    of whether termination of Jennette’s parental rights was in the
    children’s best interests.
    (b) Best Interests
    In her brief on appeal, Jennette argues that the juvenile court
    erred in finding that termination of her parental rights was in
    the children’s best interests. She asserts that she has a strong
    - 861 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    bond with the children and that “she has made improvements
    in her parenting skills that can be used to provide for the needs
    of her children.” Brief for appellee on cross-appeal at 14. Upon
    our review, we affirm the decision of the juvenile court that
    termination of Jennette’s parental rights was in the children’s
    best interests.
    Jennette did present evidence which demonstrated that she
    made attempts to be involved in her children’s education and
    that the children appeared content with Jennette. However,
    the overwhelming evidence presented at the hearing revealed
    that Jennette’s continued relationship with the children was
    detrimental to their well-being. As we discussed in our analy-
    sis of Steven’s appeal, the children had significant behavioral
    issues when they were removed from Jennette’s care. During
    the children’s time in foster care, their behaviors improved
    somewhat. Despite this improvement, the children regressed
    dramatically after visits with their parents. Genevive, in par-
    ticular, appeared to react very negatively to seeing Jennette.
    Genevive would have nightmares after visits. In these night-
    mares, Jennette would appear as a “monster” or would be
    “shooting people.” By the time of the termination hearing,
    Jennette was seeing her children for a brief period of time
    every other weekend. Such limited contact with the children
    and with such negative behaviors occurring after that contact
    was not indicative of a strong bond between Jennette and
    the children.
    Despite Jennette’s contentions in her brief on appeal, the
    evidence presented at the hearing did not reveal that she had
    made progress toward becoming an appropriate and effective
    parent. Jennette did obtain employment during the court pro-
    ceedings. However, by the time of the hearing, she had vol-
    untarily terminated this employment. Jennette had made some
    improvements on her home, but not enough improvements to
    make it a safe or sanitary living environment. Jennette failed
    to follow the recommendations of Stermensky and did not
    address her mental health problems. She was jailed twice on
    - 862 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    charges of child abuse. She chose to continue a relationship
    with a man who did not get along with her children. Taken
    together, the evidence presented revealed that Jennette’s cir-
    cumstances had remained virtually unchanged since the initia-
    tion of the court proceedings.
    At the termination hearing, Wiebesiek testified that Jennette
    had made poor progress since the removal of her children.
    Wiebesiek explained that Jennette had made no improvements
    in parenting skills and failed to follow through with the tenets
    of the court-ordered case plan. Wiebesiek opined that ter-
    mination of Jennette’s parental rights was in the children’s
    best interests.
    Based upon our review of the evidence, we agree with
    Wiebesiek’s opinion that termination of Jennette’s parental
    rights was in all three children’s best interests. The children
    should no longer have to wait for Jennette to put them ahead
    of her own needs and wants. Jennette is currently not a fit
    parent, and given her lengthy history of involvement with the
    Department, it appears that she will not become a fit and capa-
    ble parent any time in the near future. We affirm the decision
    of the juvenile court which found that termination of Jennette’s
    parental rights was in Steven Jr.’s Genevive’s, and Aodhan’s
    best interests.
    VI. CONCLUSION
    We conclude that the State proved statutory grounds for
    termination of Steven’s and Jennette’s parental rights to Steven
    Jr., Genevive, and Aodhan and proved that termination is in the
    children’s best interests. As such, we affirm the decision of the
    juvenile court.
    Affirmed.
    Arterburn, Judge, concurring.
    I agree with the analysis in the court’s opinion as to Steven’s
    appeal. I also agree that the evidence presented at the termi-
    nation hearing was sufficient to support the county court’s
    - 863 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    determination that Jennette’s parental rights should be ter-
    minated. However, I disagree with the manner in which the
    majority herein has reached its decision. I take this position
    based on my reading of the case law relating to the issue of
    compliance with Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(D)(4) (rev. 2014),
    case law that should, in my opinion, be reexamined.
    The decision to terminate a mother’s or father’s parental
    rights is among the most serious and difficult decisions a court
    is called upon to make. Unfortunately, the appellate courts
    of this state have frequently been asked to weigh whether
    a person’s fundamental right to parent their child should be
    affected by procedurally deficient briefs filed on behalf of
    that parent. This scenario frequently occurs when the second
    parent to seek appellate review of a trial court’s decision to
    terminate parental rights fails to follow the requirements of
    § 2-109(D)(4). In cases decided by this court in 2018, and thus
    far in 2019, there have been at least six occasions where the
    second parent to file a notice of appeal and/or brief did not
    follow the requirements of the rule.
    Before proceeding, I must make mention of appellate coun-
    sel’s obligation to be conversant with the Nebraska Court
    Rules of Appellate Practice. Our Supreme Court has warned
    parties that those who fail to abide by these court rules do so
    at their own peril. Despite this warning, this issue continues to
    arise repeatedly in termination of parental rights cases.
    Part of the confusion may lie in the fact that in most ter-
    mination cases, the interests of the father and mother are not
    adverse. As a result, the second parent to appeal in essence
    has no response or argument with the appellant’s conten-
    tions, so there is no obvious need to write a responsive brief.
    That parent is more akin to an appellant than an appellee.
    Interestingly, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1913 (Reissue 2016) pro-
    vides that the party asking for reversal, vacation, or modifica-
    tion of a final order is to be designated as appellant, and the
    adverse party is to be designated as appellee. In termination
    cases, the term “appellant” more correctly describes the second
    - 864 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    parent to either file their notice of appeal or their brief. That
    person is clearly seeking reversal of the trial court’s order,
    and typically, the only parties that are adverse to their inter-
    ests are the State and/or the guardian ad litem. Even given
    this potential confusion, however, there is ample case law
    warning of the consequences of failing to follow the rules of
    appellate practice.
    Section 2-109(D)(4) provides:
    Where the brief of appellee presents a cross-appeal, it
    shall be noted on the cover of the brief and it shall be set
    forth in a separate division of the brief. This division shall
    be headed “Brief on Cross-Appeal” and shall be prepared
    in the same manner and under the same rules as the brief
    of appellant.
    Our Supreme Court addressed this issue in In re Interest
    of Natasha H. & Sierra H., 
    258 Neb. 131
    , 
    602 N.W.2d 439
    (1999). In that case, the parental rights of both parents were
    terminated by the trial court. The father’s notice of appeal was
    filed after the mother’s notice of appeal. His brief was titled
    as “‘Brief of Appellee.’” In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra
    
    H., 258 Neb. at 144
    , 602 N.W.2d at 450. The court noted that
    the father was indeed an appellee as provided by § 25-1913.
    However, since the father was seeking affirmative relief, he
    was required to follow the dictates of the court rule. The court
    stated, “The appellate courts of this state have repeatedly indi-
    cated that a cross-appeal must be properly designated, pursu-
    ant to rule 9D(4) [now § 2-109(D)(4)], if affirmative relief
    is to be obtained.” In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra 
    H., 258 Neb. at 145
    , 602 N.W.2d at 450. Since no cross-appeal
    was properly designated, the court refused to consider the
    father’s claim for relief. The court acknowledged that cases
    had arisen where the court did entertain procedurally defective
    cross-appeals where those cross-appeals had been mistakenly
    asserted as an appellant’s brief, but noted that this matter is
    left solely to the discretion of the courts and “does not imply
    a willingness to consider such defective appeals in the future.”
    - 865 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    Id. at 147, 
    602 N.W.2d at 451. See, also, Knaub v. Knaub, 
    245 Neb. 172
    , 
    512 N.W.2d 124
    (1994); In re Application A-16642,
    
    236 Neb. 671
    , 
    463 N.W.2d 591
    (1990). The court concluded
    by stating: “Parties wishing to secure appellate review of their
    claims for relief must be aware of and abide by, the rules of
    this court and the Court of Appeals in presenting such claims.”
    In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra H., 258 Neb. at 
    147, 602 N.W.2d at 451
    . The court then declined to waive the rules on
    the father’s behalf.
    This court considered a similar case in In re Interest of
    Chloe P., 
    21 Neb. Ct. App. 456
    , 
    840 N.W.2d 549
    (2013). In In re
    Interest of Chloe P., after the father filed his notice of appeal,
    the appellate clerk notified him that his notice would be treated
    as a second notice of appeal and referred him to Neb. Ct. R.
    App. P. § 2-101(C) (rev. 2015). The father correctly designated
    himself as an appellee, but failed to follow the instructions of
    § 2-101(C) which direct an appellee to follow the requirements
    set forth in § 2-109(D)(4). In that case, we held:
    Based upon our court rules, [the father], as an appel-
    lee, was required to identify his cross-appeal on the cover
    of his brief and in a separate section in compliance with
    § 2-109(D)(4). As in In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra
    
    H., supra
    , we decline to waive the rules on his behalf and
    to award him affirmative relief.
    In re Interest of Chloe 
    P., 21 Neb. Ct. App. at 472
    , 840 N.W.2d
    at 561.
    Most recently, this court addressed a case wherein the
    mother (who filed her brief after the father filed his notice
    of appeal) failed to comply with § 2-109(D)(4). In re Interest
    of Becka P. et al., ante p. 489, 
    933 N.W.2d 873
    (2019). The
    mother properly designated herself as an appellee. On the
    cover of her brief, she wrote “‘Brief of Appellee on Cross
    Appeal.’” In re Interest of Becka P. et al., ante at 
    511, 933 N.W.2d at 889
    . However, she did not set forth her cross-appeal
    in a separate section of the brief. Rather, her brief was written
    simply as if she was an appellant. The court distinguished the
    - 866 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    case from In re Interest of Chloe 
    P., supra
    , and In re Interest
    of Natasha H. & Sierra H., 
    258 Neb. 131
    , 
    602 N.W.2d 439
    (1999), finding that even though there was not a separate
    section for the cross-appeal, as is required by § 2-109(D)(4),
    “because the form and presentation of her assignments of error
    conform with the rules applicable to an appellant’s brief, we
    may consider the arguments raised in her brief.” In re Interest
    of Becka P. et al., ante at 
    513, 933 N.W.2d at 890
    (citing
    Knaub v. 
    Knaub, supra
    , and In re Application 
    A-16642, supra
    ).
    Though this appears to be at least a partial waiver of the rule,
    the court did not utilize any language of waiver.
    The majority opinion of the court in this case follows the
    precedent set in In re Interest of Becka P. et 
    al., supra
    . Here,
    the cover of Jennette’s brief designates her as an appellee
    and a cross-appellant and designates the brief as “Brief of
    Appellee/Cross Appellant.” As such, this case is essentially on
    all fours with In re Interest of Becka P. et al., and according
    to that precedent, Jennette’s assignments of error should be
    addressed on the merits. While I agree that Jennette deserves
    to have a full analysis of her case on the merits, I believe that
    the precedent set in In re Interest of Becka P. et al. may run
    afoul of the holding in In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra
    H., and certainly departs from the holding in In re Interest
    of Chloe P., which requires compliance with all aspects of
    § 2-109(D)(4).
    The holding in In re Interest of Becka P. et 
    al., supra
    ,
    moves the line a bit farther toward easing compliance with our
    court rule without fully waiving the rule. Under In re Interest
    of Chloe P., 
    21 Neb. Ct. App. 456
    , 
    840 N.W.2d 549
    (2013), we
    required that the cross-appeal be identified on the cover of the
    brief and that a separate section devoted to the cross-appeal as
    prescribed by the court rule be included. Under In re Interest
    of Becka P. et al., the requirement of a separate section is
    no longer needed so long as the form of the brief and pres­
    entation of assignments of error conform to the rules of an
    appellant’s brief under § 2-109(D)(1). The difficulty with this
    - 867 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    finding (aside from its potential conflict with the holding in In
    re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra H.) is that it simply trades
    one fine line for another.
    As our case law stands now, if the second parent to file an
    appeal or brief were to designate himself or herself only as
    an appellee (or perhaps as an appellant), without designating
    the brief as a cross-appeal, we would find that that parent had
    run afoul of the rule and would not hear his or her case on
    the merits even if the brief otherwise fully complied with the
    rules applicable to an appellant’s brief. At best, we may give
    them plain error review. See, e.g., In re Interest of Justine J.
    & Sylissa J., 
    288 Neb. 607
    , 
    849 N.W.2d 509
    (2014) (hold-
    ing that where brief of party fails to comply with mandate
    of § 2-109(D), appellate court may proceed as though party
    failed to file brief or, alternatively, may examine proceedings
    for plain error); In re Interest of Samantha L. & Jasmine L.,
    
    286 Neb. 778
    , 
    839 N.W.2d 265
    (2013). However, if the second
    parent were to designate his or her brief as a cross-appeal on
    the cover, and present us with an otherwise identical brief, that
    parent would receive a full review. In other words, full review
    may depend on whether the word “cross” is found some-
    where on the cover of the brief in conjunction with the words
    “appeal” or “appellant.”
    This fine line raises the question of whether § 2-109(D)(4)
    should be strictly applied at all to termination of parental
    rights cases. Should the decision of whether a father’s or
    mother’s right to parent his or her child potentially turn on
    whether one simple word appears on the cover of a brief?
    In the present case, the ultimate result would not change.
    Whether we review Jennette’s claims on the merits, conduct
    a plain error analysis, or simply refuse to review the matter
    due to noncompliance with the rule, we would affirm the ter-
    mination of Jennette’s parental rights. That will not be true of
    every case, however.
    For this reason, I cannot join in the final section of the
    opinion of the court regarding Jennette’s cross-appeal. In my
    - 868 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    27 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF STEVEN S. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    27 Neb. Ct. App. 831
    view, we have two paths that can be followed: (1) strictly fol-
    low prior case law and require full compliance with our court
    rule as was done in In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra H.,
    
    258 Neb. 131
    , 
    602 N.W.2d 439
    (1999), and as this court did
    in In re Interest of Chloe 
    P., supra
    , or (2) simply exercise
    our discretion and waive the rule as is also authorized by In
    re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra H. Given the fundamental
    nature of a person’s right to parent their child, I favor the
    latter so long as the brief complies with the rules governing
    an appellant’s brief. I do not believe that gradually cutting
    back on the enforcement of § 2-109(D)(4) as prescribed by
    In re Interest of Becka P. et al., ante p. 489, 
    933 N.W.2d 873
    (2019), and followed herein, promotes clarity in the law or
    will result in a just result for all parents whose parental rights
    hang in the balance. In this case, Jennette’s brief does meet
    the requirements of an appellant’s brief under § 2-109(D)(1).
    She is seeking reversal of a final order. Her interests are not
    adverse to those of Steven. As defined by § 25-1913, she is
    an appellant. Considering these factors in conjunction with
    the fundamental right a person has to parent their children, I
    believe the better course would be to simply waive all of the
    requirements of § 2-109(D)(4) as the pertinent case law allows
    us to do.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A-18-1183, A-18-1184, A-18-1185

Citation Numbers: 27 Neb. Ct. App. 831

Filed Date: 12/10/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021