COUNSEL: Robert A. Laughlin, of Prince and Laughlin, for appellant J.R.C.

Wesley E. Hauptman, of Green, Hauptman & Kivett, for appellant N.J.C.

Ronald L. Staskiewicz, Douglas County Attorney, and Elizabeth G. Crnkovich for appellee.

Thomas M. Kenney, Douglas County Public Defender, and Regina T. Makaitis, guardian ad litem.

JUDGES: Hastings, C.J., Boslaugh, White, Caporale, Shanahan, Grant, and Fahrnbruch, JJ.

OPINIONBY: CAPORALE

OPINION: [*497] [**804] I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants, J.R.C. and N.J.C., appeal the judgment terminating their parental rights to C.D.C., a son
born to them on April 12, 1986. The parents contend that the court below erred in finding that they
failed to comply with the rehabilitation program established for each and that termination of their
parental rights was in their son's best interests. The father further urges that the juvenile court erred
in prescribing a rehabilitation program which contained provisions which were not reasonably
necessary [***4] for the plan's ultimate success. The mother further argues that the juvenile court
erred in finding that she had substantially and continuously or repeatedly neglected her son and
refused to give him the necessary parental care and protection. We affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

The juvenile court acquired jurisdiction over the child on May 12, 1987, as a result of an adjudication
that he fit within Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) (Reissue 1988) by virtue of having suffered a skull
fracture which the parents could not explain and because the father had on several occasions
spanked the then less than 7-month-old child, had on several occasions held his hand over the
child's mouth to prevent the child from crying, and had physically abused the mother while the child
was in their custody, and because the mother had failed to remove or protect the child from such an
environment. That [*498] adjudication being a final appealable order, In re Interest of C.D.A., 231
Neb. 267, 435 N.W.2d 681 (1989), from which neither parent appealed, the parents may not now
question the existence of the facts on which the juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over their child.
[***5] See, In re Interest of L.B., A.B., and A.T., ante p. 134, 454 N.W.2d 285 (1990); In re Interest
of M.B. and J.B., 233 Neb. 368, 445 N.W.2d 618 (1989). The juvenile court later prescribed
rehabilitation plans for both parents in order to correct the conditions which led the juvenile court to
assert jurisdiction.

III. ANALYSIS

We begin our analysis by recalling the rule that in order to terminate parental rights, the State must
prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination of parental rights is in the child's best
interests and that at least one of the six bases provided in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292 (Reissue 1988)
exists. In re Interest of C.P., ante p. 276, 455 N.W.2d 138 (1990). Among the bases for termination
of parental rights, § 43-292 includes:

(2) The parents have substantially and continuously or repeatedly neglected the
juvenile and refused to give the juvenile necessary parental care and protection;

. . . .

(6) Following a determination that the juvenile is one as described in subdivision (3)(a)
of section 43-247, reasonable efforts, under the direction of the court, have failed to
correct [***6] the conditions leading to the determination.

In an appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights, the Supreme Court tries factual questions
de novo on the record, which requires the Supreme Court to reach a conclusion independent of the
findings of the trial court, but, where evidence is in conflict, the Supreme Court considers and may
give weight to the fact that the trial court observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the
facts rather than another. In re Interest of C.P., supra; In re Interest of T.E., S.E., and R.E., ante p.
420, 455 N.W.2d 562 (1990); In re Interest of M.M., C.M., and D.M., 234 Neb. 839, 452 N.W.2d 753
(1990); In re Interest of C.N.S. and A.I.S., 234 Neb. 406, 451 N.W.2d 275 [*499] (1990).

1. Father's Appeal

As noted in part I above, the father contends that the record does not establish failure on his part to
comply with the court-ordered plan, that several provisions of the [**805] plan are not reasonable
and material, and that termination of his parental rights is not in his son's best interests. We
consider each of these claims in turn.

(a) Compliance with [***7] the Plan

The juvenile court ordered the father to obtain a chemical dependency evaluation and participate in
the "NOVA Therapeutic Community Substance Abuse Treatment" program, participate in a men's
domestic violence group, refrain from illegal activity, maintain adequate legal employment, maintain
adequate independent housing for himself and keep rent current, maintain regular visits with the
child, cooperate with the persons involved in his rehabilitation, and notify the court of any change in
residence or employment. At a subsequent review hearing, the court further ordered the father to
abstain from all use of drugs or alcohol.

The record reveals that the father willfully failed to comply with the requirements set forth by the
juvenile court. See, In re Interest of C.N.S. and A.I.S., supra; In re Interest of J.L.M. et al., 234 Neb.
381, 451 N.W.2d 377 (1990) (in order to justify termination of parental rights based upon a failure to
comply with a provision of a rehabilitation plan, the evidence must show that the parent's failure was
willful). As largely established by his own admissions, the father failed to participate [***8] in any of
the treatment programs prescribed by the court; was arrested and placed in prison once during the
rehabilitative period; physically abused the mother on many occasions; held only occasional
temporary jobs; failed to maintain his own residence or contribute to the rent the mother paid; failed
to visit the child regularly, at one time not seeing the child for approximately 17 months; and used
drugs and alcohol during the rehabilitative period. The father himself testified that his compliance with
the plan was "more of a con than reality."

[*500] (b) Reasonableness of Plan

The father next contends that the requirements of the plan that he attend counseling at the NOVA
substance abuse treatment program and maintain adequate legal employment are unreasonable and
not material to the correction of the situation for which the child was previously adjudicated.

A juvenile court has the discretionary power to prescribe a reasonable program for parental
rehabilitation to correct the conditions underlying the adjudication that a child is a juvenile within the
Nebraska Juvenile Code. In re Interest of C.N.S. and A.I.S., supra; In re Interest of J.L.M. et al.,
supra. [***9] While there is no requirement that the juvenile court must institute a plan for
rehabilitation of a parent, where the failure of a parent to comply with a rehabilitation plan is an
independent ground for termination of parental rights, the rehabilitation plan must be conducted
under the direction of the juvenile court and must be reasonably related to the plan's objective of
reuniting parent with child. See, In re Interest of P.D., 231 Neb. 608, 437 N.W.2d 156 (1989); In re
Interest of D.L.S., 230 Neb. 435, 432 N.W.2d 31 (1988).

An intake coordinator for NOVA described NOVA as a "long-term residential and out-patient and
partial-care [drug and alcohol] treatment program for adolescents and adults." Based upon an
interview with the father and his past history of involvement with drugs and alcohol, the coordinator
recommended that the father enter the residential treatment program at NOVA in order to receive
treatment for his chemical dependency and "other dysfunctional behaviors." The coordinator testified
that NOVA concentrates on an individual's behavioral problems because correcting the behavioral
problems leads to [***10] correction of the drug and alcohol problems. The father has a history of
involvement with drugs and alcohol and admitted to the coordinator that he had difficulty with
socialization and a problem with drugs and alcohol. In June 1988, the father was evaluated by an
outpatient counselor at NOVA who also recommended that the father participate in inpatient
treatment at NOVA.

[**806] It is apparent that the provision requiring the father to participate in NOVA is directly
correlated to the plan's objective [*501] of reuniting the father with the child and securing the health
and well-being of the child. The father urges that NOVA was not appropriate for him in that NOVA
uses a confrontational approach to treatment, and a Dr. Bartholow, who evaluated the father for the
Division of Rehabilitation Services of the Nebraska Department of Education, recommended that the
father avoid "emotional stress and pressure." Bartholow evaluated the father not for purposes of
determining the type of treatment the father needed, but for purposes of determining his amenability
to vocational rehabilitation. The two NOVA counselors, who evaluated the father specifically for
purposes of determining what type [***11] of treatment the father needed, were of the opinion that
the confrontational program at NOVA would be beneficial. Because the father repeatedly failed to
involve himself in inpatient treatment, the court was unable to monitor his progress and determine
whether the NOVA confrontational approach was indeed beneficial to him.

It is also apparent that the requirement that the father maintain adequate legal employment is
reasonably related to the plan's objective of reuniting the father with the child and securing the health
and well-being of the child. Although there is evidence in the record that the father had a back
problem which inhibited his ability to work, there was also evidence that the father was employable,
but simply lacked the motivation to maintain steady employment. A parent is required to provide his
child with the basic necessities of life. See, State of Iowa ex rel. Petersen v. Miner, 226 Neb. 551,
412 N.W.2d 832 (1987); Coffey v. Coffey, 205 Neb. 191, 286 N.W.2d 753 (1980).

In addition, the father complains that the plan failed to include a provision for mental health therapy,
which provision he claims [***12] was "reasonably necessary for the plan[']s ultimate success." As
noted above, the NOVA inpatient program provides treatment for behavioral problems, but because
the father failed to participate, the court was unable to determine whether the treatment NOVA
provided was beneficial.

(c) Child's Best Interests

Where a parent is unable or unwilling to rehabilitate himself or herself within a reasonable time, the
best interests of the child [*502] require termination of the parental rights. In re Interest of C.N.S.
and A.I.S., 234 Neb. 406, 451 N.W.2d 275 (1990); In re Interest of J.L.M. et al., 234 Neb. 381, 451
N.W.2d 377 (1990). Children cannot, and should not, be suspended in foster care, nor be made to
await uncertain parental maturity. In re Interest of M.M., C.M., and D.M., 234 Neb. 839, 452 N.W.2d
753 (1990). The father's unwillingness to comply with a rehabilitative program directed at reuniting
him with his child and designed to secure the continued long-term health and well-being of the child
compels the conclusion that termination of his parental rights to the child is in the [***13] child's
best interests.

2. Mother's Appeal

The mother, as noted in part I above, contends that the record contains no evidence which
substantiates noncompliance with a reasonable and material provision of the rehabilitation program
the court prescribed for her, that the evidence fails to show that she has neglected her child, and
that termination of her parental rights is not in the child's best interests. As we did in connection with
the father's appeal, we consider each of the mother's claims in turn.

(a) Compliance with the Plan

The mother has complied substantially with the plan prescribed for her, having cooperated in the
various programs offered to her and having maintained very regular visitations with the child. At issue
is whether she has complied with the requirement that she "maintain a safe, violence and drug free
environment for at least 3 months prior to consideration of [the child's] placement in her home."

[**807] The record establishes that the father continually moved in and out of the mother's life and
that when he resided with her, he physically abused her. According to the evidence, on various
occasions the father had kicked the mother, given her a black eye, hit [***14] her in the chest,
threatened her with a knife, burned her by throwing a cup of hot coffee on her, and caused bruises on
her legs. In addition, once when "quite angry," the father had broken the mother's radio and television
and thrown things around her apartment. On another occasion, again when the father was angry, he
had dragged the mother by her hair across [*503] a parking lot.

Although the mother tried several times to leave the father, she always returned to him. Twice she
filed for divorce but, at the time of the termination petition and judgment, had reconciled with the
father. The mother told one of the rehabilitation counselors for the Mental Health Center at Immanuel
Medical Center that she was aware she was choosing the father over her son.

The rehabilitation counselor, who had provided therapy to the mother for 3 years, stated that when
the father was absent from the mother's life, the mother was able to recognize the danger involved in
the father's abusive behavior but that when the father returned, the mother would delude herself into
believing that he was not abusive. According to the counselor, the mother was "unable to maintain a
realistic appraisal of [the [***15] father] for any length of time." In the counselor's opinion the mother
had not shown good judgment in protecting herself from the father, and the counselor was of the
further opinion that the mother was unable to keep the child safe. According to the counselor, it is
not healthy for a child to grow up in an environment where one parent abuses the other. The
counselor acknowledged that the mother could be a good parent if she would disassociate herself
from the father.

A social worker for the Nebraska Department of Social Services held similar views that the mother
did not realize the danger posed by the father's abusive nature and was as yet unable to sever the
relationship with the father. The social worker opined that the parents, as a couple, were unable to
provide a safe and stable home for the child.

The record establishes that although the mother completed participation in the "Women Against
Violence" program and the "Women Who Love Too Much" support group, she was nevertheless
unable to sever her ties with the father, end the abusive relationship, and provide her child with a
healthy environment. A parent seeking to avoid termination of her parental rights must do more
[***16] than merely comply with the court-ordered rehabilitative efforts; she must gain
understanding of her problem and make progress in efforts toward changing her behavior. Dutchess
Cty. Dept. of Soc. S. v. [*504] Mr. G., 141 Misc. 2d 641, 534 N.Y.S.2d 64 (1988). We conclude, as
did the lower court, that the mother's inability to provide her child with an environment devoid of
abusive behavior constitutes a willful failure to "maintain a safe, violence and drug free environment
for at least 3 months prior to consideration of [the child's] placement in her home." Children have the
right to grow up in a wholesome and healthful atmosphere, free of fear of abuse or injury. In re
Interest of K.C. and C.C., 227 Neb. 84, 416 N.W.2d 24 (1987).

(b) Neglect

We further conclude that the mother's continued relationship with the abusive father constitutes
substantial and continuous or repeated neglect and a refusal to give her child the parental care and
protection which is necessary. We have stated that a parent may as surely neglect a child of whom
she does not have possession by failing to put herself in a position to acquire [***17] possession
as by not properly caring for a child of whom she does have possession. In re Interest of J.N.V., 224
Neb. 108, 395 N.W.2d 758 (1986). By continuing to live in an environment where she is physically
abused by the father, the mother has failed to place herself in a position for the child to be returned
to her.

[**808] (c) Child's Best Interests

The record contains clear and convincing evidence which establishes that despite efforts by the
court, the mother is unable to terminate the abusive relationship she has with her husband and is
therefore unable to provide a healthy, loving, and safe environment for her child. We therefore
conclude that termination of the mother's rights in the child is in his best interests.

IV. DECISION

Since the record fails to sustain any of the father's or mother's assignments of error, the judgment of
the juvenile court is affirmed as to each parent.

Affirmed.