Antillon v. Cabrera
A-16-659
| Neb. Ct. App. | Mar 7, 2017Background
- Antillon petitioned for a domestic abuse protection order on May 18, 2016, alleging physical abuse, verbal abuse, unwanted contact at work, and controlling behavior by Cabrera.
- An ex parte order was entered on the same day as the petition.
- A show cause hearing was conducted; Cabrera appeared with counsel, Antillon proceeded pro se, and the judge limited Cabrera’s counsel to advisory participation.
- Antillon testified generally crediting her petition’s allegations; Cabrera testified and introduced text messages the court reviewed for completeness and authenticity.
- The court found Antillon more credible and extended the protection order for 1 year, entering a June 30, 2016 order.
- Cabrera timely appealed arguing procedural due process and impartiality issues related to evidentiary rules at the hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of due process challenge | Cabrera contends he was denied heightened due process for a higher liberty interest. | Antillon asserts Cabrera failed to raise due process issue below; preserved question not shown. | Issue not preserved; court will not review. |
| Due process level at protection order show cause hearing | Cabrera argues limited counsel participation biased proceedings and insufficient process given rights to bear arms. | Antillon contends the due process afforded in protection order hearings is limited and otherwise adequate. | No reversible due process error; process deemed adequate. |
| Judicial impartiality during hearing | Cabrera claims the judge biased by favoring Antillon and improperly handling objections and testimony. | Antillon argues the judge treated both parties equally and properly managed evidence. | No reversible impropriety; no bias shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Torres v. Morales, 287 Neb. 587 (2014) (procedural due process limited in protection order hearings)
- Hauser v. Hauser, 259 Neb. 653 (2000) (appearance/waiver prerequisites for constitutional questions on appeal)
- Hronek v. Brosnan, 20 Neb. App. 200 (2012) (trial court may actively control protection order procedure)
- Richards v. McClure, 290 Neb. 124 (2015) (protection orders; evidentiary rules in appeal context)
- Zuco v. Tucker, 9 Neb. App. 155 (2000) (evidence rules in protection order proceedings)