In re Interest of C.A., A-16-575

Douglas County petitioned under Nebraska’s Sex Offender Commitment Act (SOCA) to commit C.A. as a dangerous sex offender; the Mental Health Board found him dangerous and ordered secure inpatient treatment; the district court affirmed and C.A. appealed.
C.A.’s criminal history includes a 1993 Arizona kidnapping/attempted sexual assault conviction, 2009 Florida convictions for forcible penetration reduced to felony battery, a conviction for intentional child abuse (no contest) involving his 13‑year‑old daughter, and two registration violations.
Psychologist Dr. Alan Levinson evaluated C.A., reviewed records, interviewed him ~6 hours, and used actuarial tools (Static‑99‑R, Stable‑2007, SORAG). Scores placed C.A. at high/very high risk of sexual and violent reoffending.
Levinson diagnosed paraphilia not otherwise specified (hebephilic/nonconsensual tendencies), alcohol abuse, and personality disorder NOS with antisocial/narcissistic features; he opined C.A. is likely to reoffend and is substantially unable to control his behavior.
A local counselor (Myers) testified he would provide outpatient treatment if C.A. were ready but did not evaluate C.A. or use diagnostic tools; Myers deferred to Levinson’s diagnoses.
The Board and district court found by clear and convincing evidence that C.A. is a dangerous sex offender and that inpatient treatment is the least restrictive alternative; this Court affirmed.

Issue	C.A.'s Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether evidence shows C.A. is a "dangerous sex offender" under SOCA (mental illness causing likelihood of repeat sexual violence; conviction; substantial inability to control)	Evidence insufficient: mental illness not established; actuarial scores unreliable; conclusions speculative	Levinson’s DSM‑IV diagnosis (paraphilia NOS) satisfies SOCA mental‑illness definition; interview, history, and validated actuarial instruments support high/very high risk and lack of control	Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supports finding C.A. is a dangerous sex offender
Whether inpatient treatment is the least restrictive alternative	Outpatient treatment is sufficient; Myers willing to provide outpatient services; less restrictive means available	Levinson opined inpatient treatment with structure/supervision is necessary given high risk, lack of insight, inconsistent reporting, and absence of reliable aftercare/relapse plan	Affirmed: inpatient treatment found to be the least restrictive alternative

In re Interest of S.J., 283 Neb. 507, 810 N.W.2d 720 (2012) (district court reviews mental health board de novo; appellate review requires clear and convincing support)
In re Interest of D.H., 281 Neb. 554, 797 N.W.2d 263 (2011) (paraphilia NOS qualifies as DSM Axis I disorder for SOCA mental‑illness requirement)
In re Interest of G.H., 279 Neb. 708, 781 N.W.2d 438 (2010) (risk assessment instruments may properly support expert opinions when used with interview and history)
In re Interest of O.S., 277 Neb. 577, 763 N.W.2d 723 (2009) (psychologist’s STATIC‑99 and SORAG‑based evaluation probative of continued danger to society)