Governor Ricketts View on Foster Care Placement With Family

IN THIS Consequence

• Policy Spotlight: The Family Start Act
• Court Opinions: In re Involvement of Jackson E., In re Interest of My'Kyng One thousand., In re Interest of Alec Southward.
• Legislative Actions: 2022 Child Welfare Legislative Bills
• Announcements: Appleseed Blog

POLICY SPOTLIGHT

The Family Showtime Human action

The Family First Act is proposed federal legislation that may soon exist introduced, past Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and ranking fellow member Ron Wyden (D-OR). The Family Kickoff Human action (FFA) would expand the financing options to state child welfare systems by allowing federal dollars to be used on prevention services focusing on children remaining in their homes as well as encouraging to the lowest degree restrictive placements that are more than family-like.

Specifically, the proposed FFA would permit states to shift their traditional use of Title IV-E funding, from costs associated with placing children in out-of-home settings to evidence-based prevention, intervention and mail-permanency services and supports. Children and youth who are identified every bit at-risk of entering or re-entering foster intendance but who can safely remain at home, meaning and parenting youth in foster intendance, and parents or kinship placements would exist eligible for these preventative services for a maximum of twelve months. Under the proposal, children, youth, and families would no longer be held to the former AFDC requirements of Title 4-East.  Furthermore, subsequently a youth is in intendance for two weeks, states would merely be able to draw down federal financial participation (FFP) for placements in a family foster abode, qualified residential treatment programs, a facility for meaning or parenting youth, or an contained living arrangement under the FFA.

Nebraska Appleseed will be tracking the FFA upon its introduction and throughout the federal legislative process. For more information on this legislation read this article from the Land Policy Advocacy and Reform Center.

COURT OPINIONS

In re Interest of Jackson E. , No. S-15-534.
Filed March 18, 2016

The Nebraska Supreme Courtroom dismissed an entreatment that sought to reverse a juvenile courtroom order overruling the grandparents' motility seeking placement of the child, because the child's grandparents did not have standing to appeal. In this case, the child was removed from his parents' custody subsequently the State filed a petition alleging the child was within Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(iii)(a) and placed in foster care with his maternal grandmother and her husband (grandparents) with the permanency objective of reunification. After two and a half years, the Department of Health and Man Services (DHHS) removed the child and placed him with another set of foster parents. Subsequently, the grandparents filed a motion seeking the render of the kid'southward placement and a motion to arbitrate. The juvenile court held a hearing to review both motions and DHHS' permanency objective. No political party objected to the move to intervene and the court sustained the motion. The court next considered DHHS' proposed permanency objective and modified the permanency plan from reunification to adoption. Lastly, the juvenile court concluded that the State had proven that the new placement was in the child'due south best interests and denied the grandparents' motion. The grandparents subsequently filed a motion for new trial or to change or amend the social club denying their motion for placement which was overruled. The grandparents appealed and alleged that the juvenile court erred in finding that the State had met its brunt of proof that its placement program was in the best interests of the child, in failing to give adequate preference to relative placement, and in failing to sustain their motion seeking placement of the kid. The Nebraska Supreme Courtroom first noted that two jurisdictional problems were presented by this appeal: (ane) whether the grandparents have standing to appeal, and (ii) whether the notice of appeal was timely filed. However, the Supreme Court determined that the grandparents lacked standing and thus did not reach the second jurisdictional outcome. The Nebraska Supreme Court ended that, as foster parents, the grandparents did not accept continuing to appeal the change in the child's placement, and clarified that neither their status every bit intervenors nor grandparents granted them continuing to appeal this decision. The Court reasoned that § 43-ii,106.01(c) merely grants the right to appeal from a last society or judgment entered by a juvenile court to the "juvenile'south parent, custodian, or guardian." The Supreme Court noted that it had previously recognized that., that "custodian" meant "legal custodian, that is, the person or entity given custody of a child by appropriate court order," and that mere placement of a kid with a person does not found that person as custodian. The Supreme Court also noted that the grandparents did not fall within the more recently recognized expanded definition of "custodian" considering they were never awarded legal custody of the child and thus lacked standing to appeal the juvenile court's order. Read the full stance.

In re Interest of My'Kyng K. , No. A-15-805 (not designated for permanent publication)
Filed March 15, 2016

In a memorandum opinion, the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed an society of the juvenile courtroom which terminated the parental rights of a father. In this instance, the child was removed from the mother'due south custody in June 2013 and the mother's parental rights were either relinquished or terminated in Jan 2015. The male parent was non contacted until February 2022 and his paternity was established via genetic testing in March 2015. In April 2015, the State filed a supplemental petition, alleging that the child was within the meaning of § 43-247(3)(a) equally to the begetter, and also filed a motion seeking termination of the male parent'southward parental rights pursuant to §§ 43-292(2) and (seven). In May 2015, the male parent appeared with counsel at his get-go court hearing and denied the allegations in the supplemental petition and the move for termination of parental rights. The male parent was afterwards awarded reasonable rights of supervised visitation and was ordered to to participate in "Permanency Mediation," complete a "Batterer'southward Intervention" class, undergo an "Initial Diagnostic Interview," and a consummate a chemical dependency evaluation. All the same, the father was non present for two subsequent hearings in July and his counsel was served a copy of the juvenile court's gild. At the second hearing in July on the State's move for termination of the begetter's parental rights, the father's counsel requested a constancy but the court overruled the motion to continue. The only witness to testify at the hearing was the child'southward case manager who testified that she was non able to contact the male parent for the first two years of the child's foster care placement. The case managing director also testified that she referred the father to child support in order to institute paternity, only the father declined the referral considering "he did not want to pay a monthly payment."  Lastly, the instance managing director testified that the father was granted visitation rights afterwards his initial appearance, only did not exercise those rights for half-dozen weeks and he did non follow through on his referral for the permanency mediation. As a consequence, the juvenile court found the child to be within the meaning of §§ 43-247(iii)(a) and 43-292(two) and (7) and held that termination of the father's rights was in the child's best interests. The father appealed and alleged that the juvenile court erred in refusing to grant his motion for a continuance, in finding grounds to stop his parental rights under § 43-292(2) and (seven), and in finding that it was in the child's best involvement to cease his parental rights. The Court of Appeals concluded that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance because the male parent was advised of the court date, was represented past counsel who had the opportunity to confront and catechize witnesses, and as such was afforded procedural due process. The Court of Appeals so concluded that the State had presented sufficient bear witness to cease the begetter'south parental rights pursuant to § 43-292(2) because the father had continuously failed to give the child necessary care and protection, he had demonstrated an unwillingness to financially support the child by failing the case manager'southward referral to child support to establish paternity, he displayed a lack of involvement in having a human relationship with the child in failing to do visitation rights immediately, and the father failed to participate in any of the services ordered by the juvenile court. The Court of Appeals also noted that the father's absenteeism at the termination hearing showed his indifference towards the child. Finally, the Court of Appeals determined that termination of the father'south parental rights was in the child'south best interest because he had made no efforts to connect with the child and had fabricated "no real effort to keep his parental rights intact." Read the full opinion.

In re Interest of Alec S. , No. A-15-658.
Filed March 15, 2016

The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed and remanded an order of the juvenile courtroom which terminated the parental rights of a female parent. The Court of Appeals concluded that the State failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the kid's best interests and remanded the case for further proceedings. In this case, the child was removed from the mother's custody in September 2022 and adjudicated to be a child within the pregnant of § 43-247(3)(a) in January 2022 later the Country filed a petition alleging that the mother had been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety, had failed to seek inpatient treatment equally recommended by her medical providers, that she was unable to provide proper parental intendance, support, or supervision for the child, that she used booze and/or controlled substances, and that the child was at risk for harm. In March 2014, the female parent was ordered to participate in a chemical dependency therapy program, submit to random drug and alcohol testing, participate in programs at Customs Brotherhood, attend family unit therapy with the child, participate in psychiatric care, and attend supervised visitation. In the September 2022 and January 2022 review hearings, the juvenile courtroom connected the previous orders with the same requirements, except the mother was no longer required to participate in a chemical dependency therapy programme. In February 2015, the State filed a motility to cease the mother's parental rights under § 43-292(ii), (half-dozen), and (seven).  The termination hearing was held in June 2022 during which iv witnesses testified, including a clinical psychologist who testified to the female parent's mental health diagnoses, a mental health therapist that testified to the child's diagnosis of adjustment disorder and to the lack of success during family therapy sessions with the female parent. Withal, a carve up mental health therapist testified to the positive progress fabricated during family unit therapy sessions and to a strong bond between the mother and child. This therapist also stated it would be in the child's best interests to maintain a relationship with the mother. Finally, the kid's caseworker testified to the mother's inconsistent participation in courtroom-ordered services such as random drug screening, therapy, and visitation. The juvenile court found that the female parent had failed to participate in services to the degree necessary to motility toward reunification, that the State had presented sufficient evidence to warrant termination of the mother's parental rights, and that it was in the best interests of the kid to terminate the mother'due south parental rights. The mother appealed and declared that the juvenile court erred in finding that the State proved the requisite statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence and in finding that termination of her parental rights was is in the child'due south best interests. The Courtroom of Appeals noted that the mother conceded the child was in out-of-home placement for 15 or more of the final 22 months and because no finding of parental mistake is necessary under § 43-292(seven), the Courtroom of Appeals concluded that the statutory grounds to terminate the mother's parental rights had been met and did not further address the other alleged statutory grounds.  The Court of Appeals then analyzed whether termination of the mother's rights was in the child's best interests. The Court of Appeals concluded that the Country failed to bear witness that termination of the mother'due south rights was in the all-time interests of the child because there was no prove presented as to how the mother'south mental health diagnoses and treatment needs affected her ability to safely parent the kid, there was no evidence establishing that the mother's drug and alcohol use impacted her ability to care for the child, and the tape lacked substantive testimony from those closest to the child such every bit the foster parents, visitation supervisors, doctors, or teachers. The Court of Appeals noted that much of the record focused on the female parent'due south shortcomings rather than on the child and whether the child's shortcomings stemmed from the mother's parenting. The Court of Appeals likewise noted that the mental health therapist who had the nigh personal contact with the child recommended that a human relationship continue betwixt the mother and child and that severing the relationship would be "detrimental to [the child'southward] well-being." Lastly, the Court of Appeals concluded that termination of the mother's rights was not in the child's best interests because the mother had fabricated progress in her parenting skills and that there existed a loving relationship between the female parent and child. Read the total opinion.

LEGISLATIVE Actions

LB 670 (Sen. Krist) – Require a hearing prior to release for persons taken into custody for mental health reasons

• Final activeness – Hearing held in Judiciary Committee on February 17, 2016

LB 673 (Sen. Krist) – Modify provisions relating to engagement of guardians ad litem

• Last activity – Placed on General File with AM2244 on March one, 2022 and AM2449 filed on March 8, 2016
• Click here to read Appleseed's testimony

LB 675 (Sen. Krist) – Alter provisions relating to placement and detention of juveniles

• Last action – Hearing held in Judiciary Committee on January 20, 2016

LB 684 (Sen. Bolz and Sen. Kolterman) – Change provisions relating to exemption from an adoptive home study equally prescribed

• Last action – Placed on Final Reading on March 23, 2016

LB 697 (Sen. Howard) – Provide for a medicaid state programme amendment awarding relating to functional family therapy

• Last action – Hearing held in Wellness and Human Services Committee on March 3, 2016

LB 707 (Sen. Coash) – Increase the number of judges of the separate juvenile court

• Terminal action – Placed on Full general File on March 8, 2016

LB 709 (Sen. Howard) – Provide for an culling to detention for juveniles

• Last action – Hearing held in Judiciary Commission on January xx, 2016

LB 744 (Sen. Watermeier) – Provide for advice and contact agreements in private and bureau adoptions

• Watermeier priority beak
• Last action – Avant-garde to Enrollment and Review with ER227 on March 29, 2016

LB 746 (Sen. Campbell) – Adopt the Nebraska SFA, change provisions for guardians advert litem and services for children, and create the Normalcy Task Forcefulness

• Campbell priority bill
• Last activeness – Placed on Last Reading with ST63 on March 9, 2016
• Click here to read Appleseed's testimony

LB 780 (Sen. Schumacher) – Change provisions relating to emergency protective custody

• Terminal activity – Hearing held in Judiciary Commission on February 3, 2016

LB 818 (Sen. Kolowski) – Change provisions relating to immunity when submitting a complaint under the Children's Residential Facilities and Placing Licensure Act

• Last activeness – Placed on Full general File on February 17, 2016

LB 843 (Sen. Pansing Brooks and Sen. Scheer) – Modify provisions relating to prostitution

• Pansing Brooks priority bill
• Last action – Placed on Final Reading with ST72 on March 22, 2016

LB 845 (Sen. Pansing Brooks) – Provide requirements relating to confinement of juveniles and provide a duty for the Inspector General of Nebraska Child Welfare

• Last action – Hearing held in Judiciary Committee on January 20, 2016
• Click here to read Appleseed's testimony

LB 866 (Sen. Bolz) – Prefer the Transition to Developed Living Success Program Act

• Terminal action – Placed on General File with AM2181 on Feb 22, 2016
• Click hither to read Appleseed'southward testimony

LB 867 (Sen. Murante) – Change provisions relating to the Administrative Process Act and require the Section of Correctional Services to adopt and promulgate rules and regulations

• Legislative Performance Inspect Committee priority bill
• Final action – Placed on Last Reading with ST68 on March 21, 2016

LB 893 (Sen. Pansing Brooks) – Modify jurisdiction of juvenile courts and modify provisions relating to temporary custody and disposition of juveniles

• Terminal action – Hearing held in Judiciary Committee on January 22, 2016

LB 894 (Sen. Pansing Brooks) – Change provisions relating to date of counsel in juvenile cases

• Judiciary priority bill
• Last activity – Placed on Final Reading with ST75 on March 23, 2016

LB 939 (Sen. Mello) – Adopt the Nebraska Early Babyhood Advantage Act

• Last action – Placed on General File with AM2221 on March 7, 2016

LB 954 (Sen. Krist) – Modify provisions relating to access to records for and investigations by the Inspector General of Nebraska Kid Welfare

• Executive Board priority neb
• Last action – Canonical by Governor on March seven, 2016

LB 975 (Sen. Kolterman) – Adopt the Child Welfare Services Preservation Human activity

• Kolterman priority bill
• Last activeness – Placed on Full general File with AM2667 and Chambers amendments on March 21, 2016
• Click hither to read Appleseed's testimony

LB 998 (Sen. Schumacher) – Provide for emergency community crisis centers and modify provisions relating to emergency protective custody

• Final action – Hearing held in Wellness and Man Services Committee, on Feb 24, 2016

LB 1010 (Sen. Williams) – Modify provisions relating to juvenile courtroom petitions

• Last activeness – Placed on Terminal Reading on March 24, 2016

LB 1034 (Sen. Campbell) – Change provisions relating to the Nebraska Children's Committee

• Concluding action – Placed on General File with AM2230 on March 7, 2016

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Appleseed'due south 20th Anniversary Celebration

Relieve the date for Nebraska Appleseed's 20th anniversary commemoration in Lincoln! This year marks xx years of Appleseed's fight for justice and opportunity for all Nebraskans. Bring together usa for a night of heavy hors d'oeuvres, alive music, and short stories told live of creating change in Nebraska. Purchase tickets online here.

Appleseed Blog

Appleseed maintains a blog (on our recently updated website!) where you tin read daily updates almost our work to positively impact depression-income families, immigrants, children in foster care, and access to wellness care.  End by and check it out!  Read, comment, and share your own stories with us at: neappleseed.org/blog

garzaawriout.blogspot.com

Source: https://neappleseed.org/blog/20402

Share this post