In re Lakota Z.

by
Two children were adjudicated and placed in the care and custody of their paternal Grandparents after their parents neglected them. Grandparents were eventually appointed the children's guardians. Subsequently, the children's Father, after completing drug court and obtaining counseling, sought to have the guardianship terminated and his children returned to him. The county court, finding that Father was not an unfit parent, ordered that the guardianship terminate. Grandparents appealed, arguing that the county court erred in incorrectly placing the burden of proof upon them instead of upon Father and applying the incorrect standard of proof in focusing upon parental unfitness instead of the best interests of the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the county court (1) correctly applied the parental preference principle, which serves to establish a rebuttable presumption that the best interests of a child are served by reuniting the child with his or her parent, and properly reasoned that the guardianship should be terminated in the absence of clear and convincing evidence by the Grandparents that Father was an unfit parent; and (2) correctly concluded that given the evidence, Father had not been proved unfit. View "In re Lakota Z." on Justia Law