This is an appeal from an order of the juvenile court terminating the mother’s parental rights to A. K., a seven-year-old child. The mother contends there was not clear and convincing evidence of her inability to properly care for A. K. or clear and convincing evidence that the child’s continued deprivation was likely to cause her serious physical, mental, emotional or moral harm. The mother also alleges that the trial court erred in failing to require the Douglas County Department of Family and Children Services DFCS to attempt to place the child with a suitable family member. We find no reversible error and affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating the mother’s parental rights. However, because the record contains insufficient evidence regarding DFCS’s efforts to locate a suitable relative placement for A. K., we remand the case to the juvenile court for further determination regarding placement. The evidence presented at the parental rights termination hearing revealed the following: Douglas County DFCS removed A. K. from her mother’s care on February 12, 2002 following a neglect referral. The investigation revealed that six adults and the minor child were living in a three-bedroom residence, the residence was dirty, there was a lack of food, the minor child was developmentally delayed and her special needs were not being met, the minor child had multiple physical problems such as head lice, decayed teeth and swollen hands and feet, the minor child was not being properly supervised, and the minor child’s mother had mental health problems.1 DFCS filed a deprivation petition, which was delayed so the mother could undergo a psychological evaluation.
On August 30, 2002, the juvenile court held a hearing on DFCS’s deprivation petition. The mother’s evaluating psychologist testified that the mother had borderline intellectual functioning, elevated scores on the child abuse potential inventory test to the extent that she is at high risk of physical abuse of the child, a cognitive disorder and various other disorders. The psychologist doubted that the mother could parent A. K., even with extensive psychological intervention. The court adjudicated A. K. deprived and awarded temporary custody to DFCS. The order also incorporated a case plan which required the mother to 1 gain transportation and maintain employment or consistent income, 2 improve her parenting skills that are specific to A. K.’s needs, 3 obtain and maintain housing that meets A. K.’s needs, 4 become aware of A. K.’s needs and exhibit knowledge of the needs, 5 submit to a psychological evaluation and follow any recommendations for follow-up care, 6 maintain her emotional bond with A. K., 7 support A. K. financially, and 8 have A. K.’s medical and developmental needs met.
