In re Interest of Joel T. et al.

- 106 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
IN RE INTEREST OF JOEL T. ET AL.
Cite as 321 Neb. 106
In re Interest of Joel T. et al., children
under 18 years of age.
State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Oscar
Kazadi Mukoma, appellant.
___ N.W.3d ___
Filed March 27, 2026. 	Nos. S-25-096 through S-25-099.
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.
2. Judgments: Statutes: Appeal and Error. When an appeal calls for
statutory interpretation or presents questions of law, an appellate court
must reach an independent, correct conclusion irrespective of the deter-
mination made by the court below.
3. Constitutional Law: Parental Rights. The proper starting point for
legal analysis when the State involves itself in family relations is always
the fundamental constitutional rights of a parent.
4. Constitutional Law: Parental Rights: Due Process. The relationship
between parent and child is constitutionally protected and cannot be
affected without procedural due process.
5. Juvenile Courts: Parental Rights: Final Orders: Appeal and Error.
An order in a juvenile special proceeding is final and appealable if it
affects a parent’s substantial right to raise his or her child.
6. Juvenile Courts: Parental Rights: Appeal and Error. A juvenile court
order imposing a rehabilitation plan affects a parent’s substantial right in
a special proceeding and is appealable.
7. Collateral Attack: Jurisdiction. Collateral attacks on previous pro-
ceedings are impermissible unless the attack is grounded upon the
court’s lack of jurisdiction over the parties or subject matter.
8. Parental Rights: Proof. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292 (Reissue
2016), it is the State’s burden by clear and convincing evidence to show
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/18/2026 12:39 AM CDT

- 107 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
IN RE INTEREST OF JOEL T. ET AL.
Cite as 321 Neb. 106
that there not only exists a statutory basis for termination but that termi-
nation is in the best interests of the child.
9. Parental Rights. Whereas the statutory grounds for termination of
parental rights are based on a parent’s past conduct, the best interests
inquiry focuses on the future well-being of the child.
10. Constitutional Law: Due Process: Parental Rights: Proof. The Due
Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution would be offended if a state
were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the
objections of the parents and their children, without some showing
of unfitness.
11. Parental Rights: Presumptions: Proof. There is a rebuttable presump-
tion that it is in the child’s best interests to maintain a relationship with
his or her parent. That presumption can only be overcome by a showing
that the parent either is unfit to perform the duties imposed by the rela-
tionship or has forfeited that right.
12. Parental Rights: Words and Phrases. Parental unfitness means a
personal deficiency or incapacity that has prevented, or will probably
prevent, performance of a reasonable parental obligation in child rear-
ing and that has caused, or probably will result in, detriment to a child’s
well-being.
13. Parental Rights. The best interests and parental unfitness analyses
require separate, fact-intensive inquiries, but each examines essentially
the same underlying facts.
14. ____. When a parent is unable or unwilling to rehabilitate himself or
herself within a reasonable period of time, the child’s best interests
require termination of parental rights.
15. Parental Rights: Time. The 15-month condition contained in Neb. Rev.
Stat. § 43-292(7) (Reissue 2016) provides a reasonable timetable for
parents to rehabilitate themselves.
Appeals from the County Court for York County: C. Jo
Petersen, Judge. Affirmed.
Jerrod Jaeger, of Jaeger Law Office, P.C., L.L.O., for
appellant.
Christopher 	M. 	Johnson, 	Chief 	Deputy 	York 	County
Attorney, for appellee.
Funke, C.J., Cassel, Stacy, Papik, Freudenberg, and
Bergevin, JJ.

- 108 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
IN RE INTEREST OF JOEL T. ET AL.
Cite as 321 Neb. 106
Bergevin, J.
INTRODUCTION
Oscar Kazadi Mukoma (Appellant) appeals from a juvenile
court order that terminated his parental rights to his four chil-
dren. This case involves separate appeals for the four children
who were adjudicated. Appellant argues that the juvenile court
deprived him of due process and erred in its determination
that termination of his parental rights to the children was in
the children’s best interests. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Adjudication Phase
Appellant is the natural father of Joel T., Michel T., Tresor
T., and Kevin T. (collectively the children). This case began on
January 5, 2023, when the children were removed from their
mother’s residence and placed in emergency custody with the
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) due to
allegations that their mother was physically abusing them.
Following their removal, the State filed petitions against
both parents to adjudicate the children under Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 43-247(3)(a) (Reissue 2016). At a contested adjudication
hearing, the juvenile court adjudicated the children within the
meaning of § 43-247(3)(a) and continued the matter for dispo-
sition as to the mother and Appellant.
Disposition Phase
At the disposition hearing as to Appellant in June 2023,
the juvenile court received a DHHS court report with a case
plan into evidence. The court adopted the court report and
the case plan and ordered Appellant to comply with the case
plan and the recommendations therein. The case plan stated
that “[i]t was reported [Appellant] has taken part in physical
altercations with the mother [in front] of his children on mul-
tiple occasions.”
The case plan had a “safety goal” and three “priority goals.”
The safety goal was for Appellant to “work with DHHS and

- 109 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
IN RE INTEREST OF JOEL T. ET AL.
Cite as 321 Neb. 106
his supports to work on his aggression.” Completion of this
goal would be evidenced by Appellant’s participation in a bat-
terers’ intervention class that was “directly related to the alle-
gations of domestic violence in the home.”
The three priority goals were that Appellant (1) address
any mental health concerns (he may have); (2) appropriately
parent his children by refraining from any emotional or physi-
cal abuse or neglect; and (3) provide appropriate housing,
food, clothing, and hygienic care for his children, as well as
participate in any therapeutic session or medical appointment
deemed necessary.
The case plan recommended the following strategies for
Appellant to meet the priority goals: (1) receive any evalua-
tions recommended by the legal parties, (2) follow all recom-
mendations made by any assessment or evaluation he may
participate in, (3) participate in some sort of therapeutic service
and a parenting class, (4) work with DHHS to communicate
any needs he may have, and (5) stay in contact with the chil-
dren’s medical providers and therapists.
At a review hearing in November 2023, the juvenile court
noted that Appellant had apparently suffered a medical epi-
sode after the June 2023 disposition hearing. The court also
noted that Appellant had a criminal case pending and that the
district court had ordered a competency evaluation in that
matter. The juvenile court continued the review hearing so
Appellant’s competency to participate in the juvenile pro-
ceedings could be determined. The exact medical issue that
Appellant suffered is unclear from the record. Throughout the
juvenile case, Appellant sometimes asserted that he suffered a
stroke and sometimes asserted he suffered a heart attack. He
offered limited medical information into evidence to confirm
the medical episode.
In December 2023, the district court found Appellant incom-
petent to stand trial in his criminal case. However, the district
court subsequently found Appellant competent in May 2024.

- 110 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
IN RE INTEREST OF JOEL T. ET AL.
Cite as 321 Neb. 106
At that time, the juvenile court found Appellant competent to
proceed with the disposition proceedings.
Termination Proceedings
On June 17, 2024, the State filed supplemental petitions to
terminate Appellant’s parental rights to the children. The State
alleged that (1) Appellant had substantially and continuously
or repeatedly neglected the children and refused to give the
children necessary parental care and protection, 1 (2) Appellant
had failed to correct the conditions leading to the determination
that the children were as described in § 43-247(3)(a), 2 and/or
(3) the children had been in an out-of-home placement for 15
or more months of the most recent 22 months, 3 as well as that
(4) termination was in the children’s best interests.
On September 10, 2024, the juvenile court held a hearing
on the State’s supplemental petitions. At the hearing, the State
called the family caseworker as a witness, and Appellant testi-
fied in his own behalf.
The caseworker worked with the family from September
2023 through the termination proceedings. The caseworker
testified that Appellant did not begin seeing a therapist until
July or August 2024, after the State filed its petitions to ter-
minate his parental rights. Besides that, Appellant received
mental health treatment only when he stayed at a facility
between April and May 2024 for the competency evaluation
in his criminal case. The caseworker further testified that,
around June 2024, Appellant started working with a family
support service to work on his parenting skills. However, the
caseworker never received proof that Appellant completed a
parenting class. The caseworker testified that, outside of these
actions, Appellant made no progress toward any of the goals
in the case plan.
1 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292(2) (Reissue 2016).
2 § 43-292(6).
3 § 43-292(7).

- 111 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
IN RE INTEREST OF JOEL T. ET AL.
Cite as 321 Neb. 106
Appellant testified to his recent progress in meeting his
goals under the case plan, such as meeting with a therapist and
working with a family support service to work on his parent-
ing skills. Appellant testified that he had not seen the children
since February 2022, nearly a year before the children were
removed from the mother’s home. He testified that he had a
heart attack in June 2023 and that he could not remember any-
thing after that until October or December 2023. Appellant also
testified that he was arrested in August 2024, was in custody
on the date of the hearing, and would be in jail until January
2025. Appellant admitted that he violated the district court’s
no-contact order by contacting the children’s mother.
Juvenile Court Order
After hearing the evidence, the juvenile court entered an
order for each of the State’s supplemental petitions. The court
addressed Appellant’s competency by highlighting the dis-
trict court’s competency determinations in his criminal case.
Regarding Appellant’s medical episode, the juvenile court
found that there was limited evidence concerning the inci-
dent, when it happened, or any effect it had on Appellant’s
day-to-day life.
The juvenile court found that the State proved three statu-
tory bases for termination: (1) Appellant substantially and
continuously or repeatedly neglected the children and refused
to give the children necessary parental care and protection, 4
(2) reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify the family had
failed to correct the conditions leading to the adjudication, 5
and (3) the children had been in out-of-home placement for 15
or more months of the most recent 22 months. 6
The juvenile court further found that the State proved
by clear and convincing evidence that Appellant was an
4 See § 43-292(2).
5 See § 43-292(6).
6 See § 43-292(7).

- 112 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
IN RE INTEREST OF JOEL T. ET AL.
Cite as 321 Neb. 106
unfit parent and that termination was in the children’s best
interests. 7 Specifically, the court found that Appellant had
not had contact with the children since February 2022, that
Appellant’s progress toward reaching the case plan goals was
“non-existent,” and that Appellant was “unable or unwilling
to rehabilitate himself . . . within a reasonable time.” 8 In this
finding, the court referenced Appellant’s lack of cooperation
with DHHS, lack of compliance with conditions of the case
plan, and unwillingness to move forward with the case. The
juvenile court ordered that Appellant’s parental rights to the
children be terminated.
Appellant timely appealed. We removed the cases to our
docket on our own motion 9 and consolidated them for briefing
and oral argument.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Appellant assigns that the juvenile court erred (1) in con-
ditioning reunification between Appellant and his children on
case plan requirements derived from factual allegations that
were not properly adjudicated and (2) in finding that termina-
tion of Appellant’s parental rights was in the best interests of
the children.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1,2] An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on
the record and reaches its conclusions independently of the
juvenile court’s findings. 10 When an appeal calls for statutory
interpretation or presents questions of law, an appellate court
7 See In re Interest of Mateo L. et al., 309 Neb. 565, 961 N.W.2d 516
(2021).
8 See In re Interest of Leyton C. & Landyn C., 307 Neb. 529, 949 N.W.2d
773 (2020).
9 See, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Cum. Supp. 2024); Neb. Ct. R. App. P.
§ 2-102(C) (rev. 2022).
10 In re Interest of Jessalina M., 315 Neb. 535, 997 N.W.2d 778 (2023).

- 113 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
IN RE INTEREST OF JOEL T. ET AL.
Cite as 321 Neb. 106
must reach an independent, correct conclusion irrespective of
the determination made by the court below. 11
ANALYSIS
We first address Appellant’s assignment of error concerning
the case plan recommendations ordered by the juvenile court.
Because we find no error, we proceed to consider whether ter-
minating Appellant’s parental rights was in the best interests of
the children.
Due Process
Appellant assigns that the juvenile court erred by condition-
ing reunification between Appellant and his children on case
plan requirements derived from factual allegations that were
not properly adjudicated. We disagree.
[3,4] The proper starting point for legal analysis when the
State involves itself in family relations is always the funda-
mental constitutional rights of a parent. 12 The relationship
between parent and child is constitutionally protected and can-
not be affected without procedural due process. 13
[5-7] An order in a juvenile special proceeding is final and
appealable if it affects a parent’s substantial right to raise his
or her child. 14 A juvenile court order imposing a rehabilitation
plan affects a parent’s substantial right in a special proceeding
and is appealable. 15 Collateral attacks on previous proceed-
ings are impermissible unless the attack is grounded upon the
court’s lack of jurisdiction over the parties or subject matter. 16
11 Id.
12 In re Interest of Jordon B., 316 Neb. 974, 7 N.W.3d 894 (2024).
13 Id.
14 In re Interest of Octavio B. et al., 290 Neb. 589, 861 N.W.2d 415 (2015).
15 In re Interest of Mya C. & Sunday C., 286 Neb. 1008, 840 N.W.2d 493
(2013).
16 In re Interest of Ty M. & Devon M., 265 Neb. 150, 655 N.W.2d 672
(2003); In re Interest of Joshua M. et al., 251 Neb. 614, 558 N.W.2d 548
(1997).

- 114 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
IN RE INTEREST OF JOEL T. ET AL.
Cite as 321 Neb. 106
Appellant argues that the juvenile court violated his due
process rights by ordering him to comply with the case plan
recommendations when the case plan relied on unadjudi-
cated domestic violence allegations against him. The State
did not address Appellant’s first assignment of error in its
appellate brief.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s claim that the juvenile
court deprived him of due process. At the disposition hearing,
Appellant had an opportunity to object to the court’s adoption
of the case plan and the recommendations therein but did not.
As counsel acknowledged at oral argument, Appellant did
not appeal the June 2023 order, which was a final, appeal-
able order. In this appeal, Appellant does not challenge the
juvenile court’s jurisdiction over the parties or subject matter;
he challenges the existence of facts underlying the court’s
jurisdiction. This argument is a collateral attack on the June
2023 disposition order, which we have previously recognized
is impermissible. 17
Best Interests Analysis
Before addressing whether termination of Appellant’s paren-
tal rights was in the best interests of the children, we note
that Appellant concedes the children have been in an out-of-
home placement for 15 or more months of the most recent 22
months. 18 He does not dispute that a statutory basis exists for
the termination of his parental rights. We agree and find that
the State proved the same by clear and convincing evidence.
We next consider whether termination of Appellant’s paren-
tal rights is in the children’s best interests. On our de novo
review, we conclude that it is.
[8-10] Under § 43-292, it is the State’s burden by clear
and convincing evidence to show that there not only exists a
statutory basis for termination but that termination is in the
17 See id.
18 See § 43-292(7).

- 115 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
IN RE INTEREST OF JOEL T. ET AL.
Cite as 321 Neb. 106
best interests of the child. 19 Whereas the statutory grounds for
termination of parental rights are based on a parent’s past con-
duct, the best interests inquiry focuses on the future well-being
of the child. 20 In this regard, we have emphasized that the Due
Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution would be offended
“‘[i]f a [s]tate were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural
family, over the objections of the parents and their children,
without some showing of unfitness.’” 21
[11-13] We apply a rebuttable presumption that it is in the
child’s best interests to maintain a relationship with his or
her parent. 22 That presumption can only be overcome by a
showing that the parent either is unfit to perform the duties
imposed by the relationship or has forfeited that right. 23 In
this context, parental unfitness means a personal deficiency or
incapacity that has prevented, or will probably prevent, per-
formance of a reasonable parental obligation in child rearing
and that has caused, or probably will result in, detriment to a
child’s well-being. 24 The best interests and parental unfitness
analyses require separate, fact-intensive inquiries, but each
examines essentially the same underlying facts. 25
Appellant argues that he was never granted a “legitimate
pathway to reunification with his children.” 26 According to
Appellant, he was unable to see his children because of the
district court’s order in the criminal case that he have no
contact with the children’s mother and because he had an
unreasonable rehabilitative plan. Appellant also argues that
19 In re Interest of Denzel D., 314 Neb. 631, 992 N.W.2d 471 (2023).
20 Id.
21 Id. at 640, 992 N.W.2d at 479. See Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 98
S. Ct. 549, 54 L. Ed. 2d 511 (1978).
22 In re Interest of Mateo L. et al., supra note 7.
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 Id.
26 Brief for appellant at 20.

- 116 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
IN RE INTEREST OF JOEL T. ET AL.
Cite as 321 Neb. 106
his incarceration and health issues during the pendency of the
juvenile case do not prove that he was unwilling or unable to
improve himself.
The State disagrees. It argues that Appellant’s failure to
cooperate with DHHS, inability to control his anger, and
lack of meaningful relationships with the children prove that
Appellant is an unfit parent and that termination of his parental
rights is in the children’s best interests.
The record establishes that Appellant made little to no
progress toward complying with the case plan or meeting its
goals during the life of this case. After the initial disposition
hearing in June 2023, Appellant did not make any progress
toward meeting the case plan goals for 1 year. We recog-
nize that Appellant alleges some of this time was caused by
his medical episode. However, Appellant failed to provide
sufficient evidence about any medical issues. Additionally,
Appellant’s behavior, including his August 2024 arrest and
subsequent violation of a district court no-contact order dur-
ing his criminal case, indicates an unwillingness or inability
to rehabilitate. 27
Appellant’s minimal progress toward the end of the juve-
nile case does not outweigh his previous lack of progress
with the case plan. The dispositional phase as to Appellant
began in June 2023. The only progress Appellant made in
the case plan was to begin attending therapy and working
with family support services a year into the case. He did not
comply with any of the other case plan recommendations
that the juvenile court ordered him to follow. Appellant was
generally uncooperative with DHHS. He did not participate
in a batterers’ intervention program, complete a parenting
class, undergo a psychological evaluation, or stay in contact
with the children’s therapists. Appellant’s failure to complete
any of the goals in the case plan supports termination of his
parental rights.
27 See In re Interest of Leyton C. & Landyn C., supra note 8.

- 117 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
321 Nebraska Reports
IN RE INTEREST OF JOEL T. ET AL.
Cite as 321 Neb. 106
[14,15] When a parent is unable or unwilling to rehabili-
tate himself or herself within a reasonable period of time, the
child’s best interests require termination of parental rights. 28
We have recognized that the 15-month condition contained
in § 43-292(7) provides a reasonable timetable for parents
to rehabilitate themselves. 29 The children have been in out-
of-home placement since January 2023. Appellant has not
been in contact with the children since February 2022, nearly
a year before this case commenced. Appellant did not begin
taking any steps toward meeting the goals in his case plan
until a year after the juvenile court ordered it. Even then, his
progress was minimal.
Appellant had 17 months between the time the children
were removed and the filing of the State’s petitions for ter-
mination of parental rights to show signs of rehabilitation.
During this reasonable period of time, he demonstrated an
inability or unwillingness to rehabilitate himself. We find that
the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that ter-
mination of Appellant’s parental rights was in the children’s
best interests.
CONCLUSION
The juvenile court did not err by adopting the court report
and case plan and ordering Appellant to comply with the case
plan recommendations. Additionally, the court did not err in
finding a statutory basis for termination of Appellant’s parental
rights and in finding that termination is in the best interests of
the children. Therefore, we affirm the court’s order.
Affirmed.
28 Id.
29 Id.