Opinion
No. A-12-392 No. A-12-393
02-05-2013
IN RE INTEREST OF ROSE H. ET AL., CHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE. STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLEE, v. DAISY H., APPELLANT, AND CHRISTOPHER H., APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT. IN RE INTEREST OF TIMOTHY H., A CHILD UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE. STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLEE, v. DAISY H., APPELLANT, AND CHRISTOPHER H., APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT.
Joseph E. Dalton, of Dalton Law Office, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant. Carolyn C. Bosn and Michelle D. Sabata, Deputy Lancaster County Attorneys, for appellee State of Nebraska. Jonathan Braaten, of Anderson, Creager & Wittstruck, P.C., for appellee Christopher H.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL
NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION
AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. § 2-102(E).
Appeal from the Separate Juvenile Court of Lancaster County: ROGER J. HEIDEMAN, Judge. Affirmed.
Joseph E. Dalton, of Dalton Law Office, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.
Carolyn C. Bosn and Michelle D. Sabata, Deputy Lancaster County Attorneys, for appellee State of Nebraska.
Jonathan Braaten, of Anderson, Creager & Wittstruck, P.C., for appellee Christopher H.
IRWIN, MOORE, and PIRTLE, Judges.
MOORE, Judge.
INTRODUCTION
Daisy H. appeals and Christopher H. cross-appeals from the orders of the separate juvenile court of Lancaster County, which terminated their parental rights to their minor children. Because we find that clear and convincing evidence exists to support the termination orders, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Christopher and Daisy are the biological parents of Rose H., born in October 2003; Molly H., born in February 2005; Rachel H., born in June 2006; Xander H., born in April 2007; Madeline H., born in November 2008; and Timothy H., born in March 2011. The five older children were removed from the family home on July 21, 2010, and placed in foster care. Timothy was removed from his parents' care on March 11, 2011, and placed in foster care. Since their removal, the children have never been returned to their parents' physical care and custody.
On July 23, 2010, the State filed a petition alleging that Rose, Molly, Rachel, Xander, and Madeline were children as defined by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) (Reissue 2008). The State alleged that the children lacked proper parental care by reasons of the fault or habits of their parents in that on or about June 23 and July 13, the family home was observed to be in a cluttered, unsafe, and/or unsanitary condition; that on or about July 13, Christopher and Daisy entered into a voluntary case with the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (Department) to assist with issues of parenting, maintaining a safe and sanitary environment, and ensuring the safety and well-being of the children; that since July 13, Christopher and Daisy had not made substantial progress toward correcting the concerns for the children's safety and well-being; that Christopher and Daisy had a history of failing to provide a safe, stable, and sanitary residence for the minor children; that Christopher had a history of failing to provide appropriate supervision for the children; that Daisy knew of Christopher's parenting and had not taken steps to ensure the children's safety and well-being; and that since June 2010, Christopher and Daisy had failed to provide proper sustenance for the children or a sibling of the children and that those actions placed the children at risk of harm. The five older children were adjudicated as being children within the meaning of § 43-247(3)(a) on July 29.
On October 28, 2010, the juvenile court entered a dispositional order, which ordered Christopher and Daisy to participate in supervised parenting time as arranged by the Department; participate in parenting education to include family support services; participate in individual therapy and family therapy; follow through with all medical, dental, vision, and educational appointments for the children; maintain a clean and sanitary living environment suitable for young children; participate in psychiatric evaluations to determine the appropriateness of a course of psychotropic medication; maintain a legal and stable source of income and residence; not use physical discipline or restraints on the children; and cooperate with caregiver-child dyadic assessment as arranged by the Department. The court also ordered Christopher to participate in a neuropsychological evaluation to assess any problems in cognitive functioning. Subsequent review hearings were held on April 5, May 17, and September 23, 2011. A permanency planning hearing was held on September 23. The psychiatric evaluations, neuropsychological evaluation, and caregiver-child dyadic assessments were completed. Subsequent orders maintained the same requirements for Christopher and Daisy, but additionally required that Christopher take all medications as prescribed and participate in the recommendations of his neuropsychological evaluation and that both Christopher and Daisy participate in child-parent psychotherapy and obtain medical care when necessary, following the recommendations of their treating physicians. A concurrent permanency plan of reunification and adoption was approved at the time of the permanency planning hearing.
On March 10, 2011, the State filed a petition alleging that Timothy was a child defined by § 43-247(3)(a). The State alleged that Timothy lacked proper parental care by the reasons of the fault or habits of his parents or was in a situation dangerous to life or limb or injurious to his health or morals in that Christopher and Daisy had five older children, who were previously adjudicated as children defined by § 43-247(3)(a); that the other children were in the legal and physical custody of the Department with placement outside the family home; that a plan to correct the conditions which led to the adjudication was developed and adopted by the juvenile court; and that Christopher and Daisy had failed to correct the conditions that led to the adjudication of the other children. The State alleged that all of those actions placed Timothy at risk of harm.
The juvenile court entered an adjudication and dispositional order on April 6, 2011, adjudicating Timothy as a child within the meaning of § 43-247(3)(a). For the sake of brevity, we have not set forth the details of the dispositional orders adopted in Timothy's case, but we note that they correspond to those ordered in the older children's case as set forth above. As in the older children's case, subsequent review hearings were held on May 17 and September 23 and a permanency planning hearing was held on September 23, at which time a concurrent permanency plan of reunification and adoption was approved.
The State filed motions for termination of parental rights in both cases on December 1, 2011. With respect to the five older children, the State alleged that termination of Christopher's and Daisy's parental rights was proper under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292(2), (6), and (7) (Cum. Supp. 2012) and that termination was in the children's best interests. In Timothy's case, the State alleged that termination was proper under § 43-292(2) and (6) and alleged that termination of Christopher's and Daisy's parental rights was in Timothy's best interests.
A hearing on the motions for termination of parental rights was held before the juvenile court on February 21 through 23 and March 16, 2012.
The evidence at the termination hearing shows that Rose and Molly were placed with their current foster family at the end of September 2011. In this placement, Rose initially had a lot of anxiety, fear, and frequent night terrors. In October, the visitation schedule between Christopher and Daisy and Rose and Molly changed to include monitored overnight visits. After that change, Rose began having more problems on the day immediately following such visits, including frequent "meltdowns" at school, where she would scream, cry, and hide under her desk. When the overnight visits ceased in November, Rose's behavior improved. At the time of the termination hearing, Rose interacted better with others, accepted rules and discipline, and had lower anxiety and less frequent night terrors. At school, she was progressing academically, had improved social skills, and no longer had "meltdowns." Rose has been seeing her individual therapist on a weekly basis since the fall of 2011. Rose has been diagnosed with chronic adjustment disorder, which means she is having a difficult time adjusting to something that has happened in her life. Her disorder causes her to have difficulty handling anxiety and other emotional triggers. Because of her disorder, Rose needs stability and predictability, something her parents have not consistently provided.
When Molly entered her current foster placement, she wet her pants frequently, did not respond to cuing, had fits of rage, and had frequent night terrors. At the time of the termination hearing, those issues had improved, and Molly accepted the rules and discipline structure in her foster home. Molly's therapist began working with her in March 2011. As with Rose, Molly's behavior changed when the monitored overnight visits began in October. She was more defiant on days following the monitored visits. Molly has been diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotion and conduct, learning disorder, and disruptive behavior disorder. Accordingly, Molly needs stability, consistency, and routine.
Rachel was 4 years old when she was placed in foster care. Initially, she had unhealthy hair and fingernails, was very pale, had dark circles and bags under her eyes, was extremely anxious, was afraid to be picked up too high, was afraid of noise, was extremely afraid of baths and showers, had no "stranger danger" at all, did not know how to interact with peers, could not accept discipline, had night terrors, and was not completely potty-trained. At the time of the termination hearing, she was in kindergarten, no longer chewed her fingernails, had long healthy hair, was learning how to interact with her peers, was taking showers without incident, was much less anxious, could handle discipline, and was completely potty-trained. Other issues, such as her fear of being left behind and her night terrors, have decreased. Rachel has seen a therapist on a weekly basis since the fall of 2011. She has been diagnosed with adjustment disorder, which affects her similarly to how it affects Rose.
Madeline entered foster care just before her second birthday and was placed in the same home as Rachel. Initially, Madeline was very undersized, had unhealthy hair and eyes, had a lazy eye, did not walk very well, was very clingy, could not go up or down the stairs, was terrified of bath time, was not potty-trained at all, was afraid of the vacuum and of the toilet being flushed, had night terrors, had very delayed speech, exhibited rocking behaviors, and had issues with eating, including guarding her food while she ate. At the time of the termination hearing, Madeline was working with a speech pathologist and progressing well with her speech. She was in a preschool program, was very surefooted, put together full sentences, and took showers without stress. She was healthier, her hair was growing, and she had gained weight. She was making progress with potty-training, accepted discipline in an age appropriate way, and no longer exhibited rocking behaviors.
When Rachel and Madeline were first placed with their foster parents, they were often very anxious prior to visits with Christopher and Daisy. After visits, Rachel would have night terrors, would bang her head against the walls or the headboard, and would grind her teeth at night. Madeline would sometimes wake up crying. In the spring of 2011, Rachel and Madeline's visits with Christopher and Daisy were decreased and switched to therapeutic visits. Now, Rachel and Madeline are less anxious and are more cooperative in following rules. Rachel and Madeline's foster parents have informed Christopher and Daisy of medical appointments for Rachel and Madeline since December 2010, but Christopher and Daisy have never attended those appointments.
Xander was placed with his foster family when he was 3 years old. Initially, he threw a lot of tantrums, often lacked the ability to communicate what he wanted, was afraid of his bedroom, had a fear of closed doors, always wanted to be around his foster parents, would shovel food into his mouth, had night terrors, was not potty-trained, exhibited rocking behaviors, and was very afraid of bath time. After visits with Christopher and Daisy, he was usually very tired, would often return with soiled pull-ups, would have food on his face and sometimes even in his ears and hair, would be very anxious, would chew his fingernails, and often smelled of cat urine. After the frequency of his visits with Christopher and Daisy were decreased in the spring of 2011, his foster parents noticed improvements in his behavior. At the time of the termination hearing, Xander used two- or three-word sentences, knew all of his colors and shapes, rarely had nightmares, was potty-trained, no longer rocked back and forth, was not afraid of the toilet, took baths with less anxiety, interacted with his peers, would chew his food and stop eating when he was full, and was developing appropriately. Xander has been seeing his therapist since the fall of 2011. He has been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder, which means he has symptoms related to the trauma or neglect he has experienced. Children with posttraumatic stress disorder need stability and predictability, need to have their feelings recognized, and should not be reexposed to trauma.
Timothy was placed in the same foster home as Xander in March 2011, shortly after his birth. When he returned from visits with Christopher and Daisy, he was usually very tired and had similar cleanliness issues to those Xander had upon returning from visits.
Both Xander and Timothy had required numerous doctor visits, of which the foster parents had informed Christopher and Daisy. At the direction of caseworkers, Daisy began attending most of Timothy's weekly physical therapy appointments, but neither parent had consistently attended scheduled medical appointments for Xander and Timothy.
Megan McDowell was the case manager assigned to the children from November 2010 through July 2011. During her time as the children's case manager, McDowell observed visits with the children and their parents approximately once every week or every other week. Throughout those visits, she observed the children asking for attention from their parents, as well as having to repeatedly ask their parents for things they needed, such as water when they were thirsty. The children would often seek attention from caseworkers instead of their parents.
In July 2010, McDowell established goals for family support with Christopher and Daisy. The goals of family support were to assist the parents in identifying and addressing needs of the children, maintaining hygiene and cleanliness of the home and children, finding and utilizing community resources, and working on parenting skills and strategies. Christopher and Daisy failed to successfully complete any of the goals of family support. While Daisy's parenting skills have improved, she continues to need some prompting. Christopher's parenting skills also improved somewhat, but his improvement was always inconsistent and unsustainable.
The court-appointed special advocate also observed visits where Christopher spent much of his time not engaging with the children. His attention seemed to be focused on talking to other adults or on the computer. He needed prompting about 90 percent of the time and was unable to consistently discipline the children. The court-appointed special advocate observed Daisy to be engaged, but she did require prompting and needed some assistance in identifying the children's needs.
Sanitation concerns have continued throughout the pendency of this case. Christopher and Daisy have had to be prompted to clean the cat litter box, clean up animal vomit on the floor, and clean soiled clothes. Christopher and Daisy have also continued to need prompts to change the children's diapers. While in their parents' care, the children have often remained in soiled diapers for extended periods of time, and it was not uncommon for their diapers to be full and leaking when they were sent back to their foster homes. On one occasion when Madeline had diarrhea, Christopher put her in the bathtub in her soiled diaper and began filling the tub with water. Christopher then turned on the shower, which upset Madeline, causing her to climb out of the tub and run for the visitation supervisor.
Daisy waited until late in her pregnancy with Timothy to receive prenatal care. In February 2011, she contracted scabies, but did not seek immediate medical treatment for the condition. McDowell had to assist Daisy in obtaining medical care and supplies and verifying Daisy's Medicaid eligibility to get medication. Similarly, McDowell had to prompt Christopher to attend the free clinic for a lesion of psoriasis on his head. Christopher has had to be prompted multiple times to obtain his psychiatric medication, and he often misses taking his medication for several days at a time. Both Christopher and Daisy have been ordered to follow through with medical appointments for the children; however, they failed to attend Madeline's eye surgery, Timothy's discharge from the hospital after his birth, and various other medical appointments for the children.
Daisy has consistently held two jobs throughout this case, leaving Christopher to be the primary caregiver for the children. Christopher, however, has been unable to maintain consistent employment. Although Christopher and Daisy experience financial difficulties, they refuse to pursue money-saving suggestions such as discontinuing cable or utilizing the food pantry and other community resources.
When McDowell originally took over the case, the children, excluding Timothy who was not born yet, were having supervised visits four times per week. Rachel, Madeline, and Xander's visits were decreased to one therapeutic visit per week, because their therapist felt they needed a greater sense of stability based on their showing of anxiety before and after visits. Following the decrease in the number of visitation hours, the children had a significant decrease in their nightmares--Rachel was less defiant and Xander was more compliant. Based on feedback from their therapist, McDowell was never able to recommend an increase in visitation time.
When Timothy was born, he attended three supervised visits per week along with Rose and Molly, as well as one additional visit per week. Christopher and Daisy continually had to be prompted regarding how to feed him and properly clean him between diaper changes. They had to be reminded not to lay Timothy on his back during or after feedings because of reflux, which caused him to "spit up quite a bit." When Daisy held Timothy, she repeatedly had to be told to support his neck and head. Due to continuing concerns regarding Timothy being properly attended to, McDowell was never able to recommend a decrease in the level of supervision between either of the parents and Timothy.
The therapist for Rose, Rachel, and Xander expressed that permanency and stability are important for children because it helps them develop attachments and a sense of belonging. A lack of stability can be harmful, because children who do not develop attachments tend to have increased anxiety, have lower self-esteem, tend to feel worthless, do poorly in school, have difficulty with the law, and tend to have more difficulty with substance abuse and mental health problems. The therapist indicated her belief that Rose, Rachel, and Xander were currently in need of permanency because they were already displaying some of the concerning symptoms she mentioned in her testimony. She observed that Rose, Rachel, and Xander appeared to be attached and comfortable in their current placements. The therapist opined that it was not in their best interests to remain in foster care indefinitely.
Both Katie Adrian, a Department employee who served as case manager and later a children and families outcome monitor, and Nicole Lemke, a family permanency specialist with KVC Behavioral Health Care, testified that since the opening of this case, the Department and KVC Behavioral Health Care have lined up services to assist in reunifying the children with their parents, but those services have not been successfully completed by either parent. The evidence at the termination hearing shows that throughout the pendency of this case, Christopher and Daisy have made minimal progress toward correcting their parenting issues. They have continued to need prompting for the same issues for which they needed prompting early in the case, specifically issues such as potty-training, discipline, and praising. Although Christopher and Daisy have been cooperative with family support providers, there has been a continued lack of understanding of the needs of the children, consistency, stability, discipline, sanitary living conditions, and creating and maintaining a budget. Even when they have made progress in certain areas, they have been unable to sustain that progress long term. Adrian and Lemke both opined that it was not in the children's best interests to be reunified with their parents at the time of the termination hearing and that permanency could not be achieved with either parent in the near future.
On April 4, 2012, the juvenile court entered orders terminating Christopher's and Daisy's parental rights to their minor children. The court found that the State had proved grounds for termination of all of the children under § 43-292(2) and (6) and of the five older children also under § 43-292(7). The court also found that termination of Christopher's and Daisy's parental rights was in all of the children's best interests. Daisy subsequently perfected her appeal to this court, and Christopher his cross-appeal.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Daisy asserts that the juvenile court erred in finding sufficient evidence to support termination of her parental rights to all of the children under § 43-292(2) and (6) and in finding that termination of her parental rights was in the children's best interests. We note that Daisy does not present arguments in support of her second assignment of error. Absent plain error, an assigned error that is not specifically assigned and specifically argued in the brief is waived. Werner v. County of Platte, 284 Neb. 899, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2012).
In his cross-appeal, Christopher asserts that the juvenile court erred in finding that the State had proved by clear and convincing evidence that termination of his parental rights to all of the children was proper under § 43-292(2) and (6) and that termination of his parental rights was in the children's best interests.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on the record and reaches its conclusions independently of the juvenile court's findings. In re Interest of Candice H., 284 Neb. 935, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2012).
Although an appellate court ordinarily considers only those errors assigned and discussed in the briefs, the appellate court may, at its option, notice plain error. Connelly v. City of Omaha, 284 Neb. 131, 816 N.W.2d 742 (2012). Plain error is error plainly evident from the record and of such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, or fairness of the judicial process. Id.
ANALYSIS
Statutory Grounds.
The juvenile court found that the State proved grounds for termination of Christopher's and Daisy's parental rights to all of the children under § 43-292(2) and (6) and also proved grounds for termination of the five older children under § 43-292(7). In order to terminate an individual's parental rights, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that one of the statutory grounds enumerated in § 43-292 exists and that termination is in the child's best interests. In re Interest of Kendra M. et al., 283 Neb. 1014, 814 N.W.2d 747 (2012). Clear and convincing evidence is that amount of evidence which produces in the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction about the existence of the fact to be proved. In re Interest of Leland B., 19 Neb. App. 17, 797 N.W.2d 282 (2011).
Under § 43-292(7), the State must show that the child has been in an out-of-home placement for 15 or more months of the most recent 22 months. The evidence was unchallenged that Rose, Molly, Rachel, Xander, and Madeline have remained in out-of-home placements since July 21, 2010, for a total of 19 of the past 22 months at the time of the termination hearing. Accordingly, the State proved § 43-292(7) by clear and convincing evidence with respect to the five older children.
Because the State need prove only one ground for termination, we decline to consider Christopher's and Daisy's assigned errors regarding the court's determination that the State proved other grounds enumerated in § 43-292 with respect to the five older children. Generally, when termination is sought under subsections of § 43-292 other than subsection (7), the evidence adduced to prove the statutory grounds for termination will also be highly relevant to the best interests of the juvenile. See In re Interest of Aaron D., 269 Neb. 249, 691 N.W.2d 164 (2005). Thus, we will consider evidence relevant to the other grounds in our analysis of the five older children's best interests.
Timothy, however, had been in out-of-home placement for only approximately 11½ months at the time of the termination hearing, so we must consider whether the State proved one of the other alleged statutory grounds in connection with Timothy.
Under § 43-292(2), grounds for termination exist when the parent has "substantially and continuously or repeatedly neglected and refused to give the juvenile or a sibling of the juvenile necessary parental care and protection." The record shows that Christopher and Daisy have continuously failed to provide sanitary living conditions for the children. Both have continued to require prompting to clean the cat litter box, clean up animal vomit, and clean soiled clothes. During visitations, the children have often remained in soiled diapers for extended periods of time, and when Christopher and Daisy do change their diapers, it is often as a result of prompting by a visitation worker. Throughout this case, Christopher and Daisy have been ordered to follow through with medical appointments for the children; however, neither attended Madeline's eye surgery, Timothy's discharge from the hospital following his birth, and various other medical appointments for the children. They have continued to need assistance identifying the children's needs, and they have been unable to sustain any sort of long-term progress.
With respect to Timothy specifically, the record shows that Christopher and Daisy do not always properly wipe Timothy between diaper changes, resulting in him returning to his foster home with feces on his bottom. He sometimes returns from visits "with spit up [left] in the creases of his neck and behind his ears." Christopher and Daisy have had to be reminded not to lay Timothy on his back during or after feedings because of reflux, which caused him to "spit up quite a bit," and Daisy has repeatedly had to be told to support Timothy's neck and head when holding him.
Both the Department and KVC Behavioral Health Care have provided services to assist in reunifying the family since the children's removal; however, neither Christopher nor Daisy has successfully completed those services. The record shows that they have both made minimal progress toward correcting their parenting issues. There is sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that termination of Christopher's and Daisy's parental rights to Timothy under § 43-292(2) was proper, and the juvenile court did not err in making this finding. Because we have found that termination as to Timothy was proper under § 43-292(2), we need not consider Christopher's and Daisy's arguments against termination under § 43-292(6) with respect to Timothy.
Best Interests.
Christopher argues that the juvenile court erred in terminating his parental rights to his minor children. A juvenile's best interests are a primary consideration in determining whether parental rights should be terminated as authorized by the Nebraska Juvenile Code. In re Interest of Sir Messiah T. et al., 279 Neb. 900, 782 N.W.2d 320 (2010).
The record shows that despite the services provided to Christopher and Daisy, neither has been able to make any consistent progress toward correcting their parenting issues. The therapist for Rose, Rachel, and Xander testified that permanency and stability are important for children because it helps them develop attachments and a sense of belonging. She indicated that a lack of stability can be harmful, because children who do not develop attachments tend to have increased anxiety, have lower self-esteem, tend to feel worthless, do poorly in school, have difficulty with the law, and tend to have more difficulty with substance abuse and mental health problems. When the five older children were first placed in foster care, many of them displayed very concerning behaviors, including high anxiety, night terrors, poor social skills, fits of rage, and fear of bathing and loud noises. Several of them were not fully potty-trained, had unhealthy hair and fingernails, and displayed unhealthy physical behaviors. Additionally, Rose and Rachel have been diagnosed with adjustment disorder; Xander has been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder; and Molly has been diagnosed with adjustment disorder, learning disorder, and disruptive behavior disorder. These disorders place the children in serious need of stability, consistency, and routines, something neither Christopher nor Daisy have been able to provide. All of the children have noticeably thrived since being placed in foster care. The five older children are not displaying such frequent concerning behaviors and seem to be benefiting from their current placements. While Rose and Molly experienced a lapse in their behaviors when they began having overnight monitored visits with their parents in October 2011, their behaviors improved when the overnight visits ceased. Since the beginning of this case, the number of visitation hours has actually decreased for the children, at the recommendation of one of the therapists, and due to lack of progress by the parents, caseworkers have never been in a position to recommend either an increase in the number of visitation hours or a decrease in the level of supervision. Finally, we note that Timothy has been in foster care his entire life and that during that time, Christopher and Daisy have not put themselves in a position to be able to care for either Timothy or his siblings. The record shows that reunification was not an option at the time of the termination hearing, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that permanency could be achieved with Christopher or Daisy anytime in the near future. To suspend the children in the system any longer than they already have been is not in their best interests.
A parent may as surely neglect a child of whom he or she does not have possession by failing to put himself or herself in a position to acquire possession as by not properly caring for a child of whom he or she does have possession. See In re Interest of Elizabeth S., 282 Neb. 1015, 809 N.W.2d 495 (2012). The system cannot and should not allow children to languish in foster care waiting to see if the parent will mature. In re Interest of Destiny A. et al., 274 Neb. 713, 742 N.W.2d 758 (2007). Where a parent is unable or unwilling to rehabilitate himself or herself within a reasonable time, the best interests of the child require termination of the parental rights. In re Interest of Ryder J., 283 Neb. 318, 809 N.W.2d 255 (2012).
The juvenile court did not err in finding that termination of Christopher's parental rights to his minor children was in their best interests. Also, we find no plain error with respect to the court's finding that termination of Daisy's parental rights was in the children's best interests.
CONCLUSION
The juvenile court did not err in terminating Christopher's and Daisy's parental rights to their minor children.
AFFIRMED.