In re Interest of Alan L.
294 Neb. 261
Neb.2016Background
- Juvenile Alan L., born 1998, previously committed to a YRTC and released on parole in 2014; new petitions and probation followed after incidents in early 2015, including threats with a gun and noncompliance with evaluations.
- County attorney moved in May 2015 to commit Alan to the Office of Juvenile Services (OJS) for placement at a Youth Rehabilitation and Treatment Center (YRTC) based on probation noncompliance; the court held a June 18 commitment hearing and denied commitment for insufficient evidence.
- After the June hearing, new information (completed chemical dependency and psychiatric evaluations and an affidavit that Alan sabotaged an Arizona placement by threatening staff/runaway) was developed and submitted in an amended commitment motion in August 2015.
- Alan moved to bar reconsideration of earlier conduct; he argued claim preclusion (res judicata) and a due process violation because authors of reports were not called and he lacked a revocation motion’s confrontation rights.
- The juvenile court, after an August 24 hearing that considered the new evidence and allowed Alan’s counsel to examine the probation officer, committed Alan to OJS and placed him on intensive supervision probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Alan) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether commitment violated due process by denying confrontation | Alan: Commitment hearing denied his right to confront authors of adverse reports; revocation motion procedures should have applied | State: Alan had notice, counsel, could present evidence, and his attorney could call/probe the probation officer; no deprivation of procedural rights | Court: No due process violation; Alan had counsel, opportunity to challenge evidence, and could question probation officer (including via leading questions) |
| Whether claim preclusion barred new evidence at second hearing | Alan: Res judicata/preclusion barred relitigation of facts or evidence available at the June hearing | State: New facts developed after the June hearing (placement sabotage) justified reconsideration | Court: Claim preclusion does not bar consideration of changed circumstances; new evidence showing change was admissible |
| Whether statutory/procedural requirements for committing to OJS were followed | Alan: State failed to show exhaustion of all probation/community options per § 43-286 and case law; procedures for changing disposition were not followed | State: Moved for commitment based on probation violations and presented evidence of exhaustion and danger | Court: Although State failed to follow preferred procedure (should have filed revocation when seeking disposition change), no plain error here and record supported findings because new evidence showed exhaustion and urgent necessity |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to show exhaustion of less-restrictive options and urgent necessity | Alan: Evidence insufficient to show all probation and community-based services were exhausted | State: New evaluations and affidavit showed refusal to cooperate and sabotage of structured placement, demonstrating exhaustion and danger | Court: Held sufficient — Arizona placement sabotage plus prior failures showed alternatives exhausted and placement at YRTC was urgently necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of Nedhal A., 289 Neb. 711 (2014) (Office of Probation must thoroughly review alternatives and report whether untried probation/community options exist or none are feasible)
- In re Interest of V.B. and Z.B., 220 Neb. 369 (1985) (res judicata does not preclude a court from considering changed circumstances after an earlier custody order)
- In re Interest of Markice M., 275 Neb. 908 (2008) (plain error where disposition changed without proper revocation procedure)
- Hara v. Reichert, 287 Neb. 577 (2014) (principles of claim preclusion and related civil-law doctrines)
- In re Interest of Isabel P. et al., 293 Neb. 62 (2016) (juvenile cases reviewed de novo on the record)