In re Interest of Becka P, 298 Neb. 98

Parents Robert P. and Veronica M. have three children adjudicated in juvenile proceedings after incidents including multiple citations for failing to use child restraints and crashes where a child was unrestrained.
Prior unrelated neglect allegations were largely unfounded; one child had been temporarily removed previously and noncourt services provided.
DHHS recommended a permanency goal of family preservation: return custody to parents and keep the educational surrogate in place.
The juvenile court rejected DHHS’s recommended disposition and instead continued care, custody, and control with DHHS while the children remained in the parents’ home.
As part of its orders, the juvenile court directed DHHS to confirm the children’s immunizations were current and, if not, to make them current with DHHS paying if parents/insurance could not.
Parents appealed, arguing the court lacked authority to order DHHS to immunize the children.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court had authority to order DHHS to update the children’s immunizations	Robert & Veronica: Court lacks authority under § 43-285(1); court may only "assent" to DHHS decisions and DHHS did not request immunizations	State/DHHS: Under § 43-288(2) the court may impose conditions (including medical care) when juvenile remains at home; ordering immunizations is authorized	Court affirmed: Juvenile court acted within its statutory authority to require immunizations as a condition related to care and medical needs

In re Interest of Becka P. et al., 296 Neb. 365, 894 N.W.2d 247 (Neb. 2017) (appellate review standard in juvenile cases; prior related appellate ruling)
In re Interest of Carmelo G., 296 Neb. 805, 896 N.W.2d 902 (Neb. 2017) (appellate review standard on questions of law)