## Facts

- E.R. and B.R. were the parents of three young children: E.R., J.R., and A.R.
- On June 2, 1986, Child Protective Services workers investigated a complaint and found the parents’ home in extremely unsanitary condition.
- Workers observed large quantities of dirt and garbage in every room; dog feces throughout the house; used sanitary pads dragged out of the bathroom by the family’s dogs; kittens and many flies in the home; dirty pots and pans (including on the kitchen floor); and virtually no food.
- The two children then in the home (E.R. and J.R.) were removed and placed in out-of-home care.
- At a June 24, 1986 hearing, the home was substantially cleaner, and the children were returned to the parents; however, legal custody remained with the Department of Social Services (DSS).
- The home conditions deteriorated again, and in August 1986 the children were removed a second time. Workers reported the parents wore the same dirty clothing for multiple days and that the children’s soiled diapers had not been changed for hours.
- The parents entered into, and significantly complied with, a rehabilitation agreement with DSS.
- For about a year, DSS provided services including parenting classes, assistance from an independent-living specialist, marriage counseling, and vocational-rehabilitation services.
- In September 1987, the third child, A.R., was born.
- By October 1987, the home’s condition had improved enough that E.R. and J.R. were returned again, with DSS still holding legal custody.
- By December 1987, the home was again in a deplorable state. During a home visit, a caseworker found an open bottle of aspirin on the floor in the children’s bedroom and saw the child E.R. eating aspirin.
- When the caseworker pointed out the danger, the mother took no action.
- All three children were removed the next day, and the State filed petitions to terminate both parents’ rights.
- The juvenile court terminated parental rights under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292(2), finding substantial, continuous, or repeated neglect and refusal to provide necessary parental care and protection. The parents appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that the parents substantially, continuously, or repeatedly neglected the children or refused to provide necessary parental care and protection under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292(2).
2. Whether termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interests.
3. What standard of review applies on appeal in parental-rights termination cases.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court’s orders terminating E.R.’s and B.R.’s parental rights to all three children.
- The court held that clear and convincing evidence showed substantial, continuous, or repeated neglect and refusal to provide necessary parental care and protection under § 43-292(2), based on the recurring filthy and dangerous home conditions and the parents’ ongoing caregiving failures.
- The court concluded termination was in the children’s best interests given the repeated cycle of brief improvement followed by serious relapse and continuing risk to the children’s health and safety, even after DSS provided significant services over an extended period.
- On appellate review, the court tried factual questions de novo on the record, while giving weight to the juvenile court’s observations of witnesses when evidence conflicted.

## Legal Principles

- Parental rights may be terminated only when at least one statutory ground is proved by clear and convincing evidence and termination serves the child’s best interests.
- Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292(2) permits termination when a parent has substantially, continuously, or repeatedly neglected the child or refused to provide necessary parental care and protection.
- Repeated environmental neglect and household hazards, together with failures in basic caregiving, can satisfy § 43-292(2), especially when the pattern continues over time.
- The State’s provision of significant reunification-related services does not prevent termination when parents cannot maintain minimally safe and sanitary conditions after repeated intervention.
- In termination appeals, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviews the record de novo; where evidence conflicts, it may give weight to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility.

## Conclusion

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed termination because the record showed a repeated pattern of severe unsanitary and hazardous living conditions and inadequate care, temporary cleanups followed by recurring deterioration despite substantial DSS services, and an ongoing risk that made termination consistent with the children’s best interests under § 43-292(2).


In re E.R., 432 N.W.2d 834 (1988)