In re Interest of Carmelo G., 896 N.W.2d 902

Carmelo G., born July 2015, was subject to an earlier juvenile case (JV 15-1285) in mid-2015; that case was dismissed and Carmelo returned to his mother, Latika, in December 2015.
Following positive drug tests and reports of recurring domestic violence between Latika and the father, NFC/DHHS implemented safety plans (Dec. 3 and Dec. 31, 2015) and placed Carmelo with maternal relatives per the Dec. 31 plan.
On Jan. 5, 2016, the State filed a petition under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) alleging lack of parental care and the juvenile court issued an ex parte order granting immediate temporary custody to DHHS the same day.
A protective-custody (detention) hearing began Jan. 21, 2016, but was continued repeatedly; evidentiary hearings occurred on multiple dates and concluded Aug. 2, 2016.
The juvenile court entered an order on Sept. 19, 2016, continuing Carmelo’s temporary custody with DHHS; Latika appealed, arguing procedural due process violations from an over-8‑month delay and that the Dec. 3 safety plan was coercive and invalid.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an >8‑month delay between ex parte removal and a protective‑custody order violated Latika's due process rights	Latika: delay was unreasonable; deprived her of a prompt, meaningful detention hearing and infringed parental liberty interest	State/guardian: Latika had notice, services, and visitation; continuances enabled a meaningful opportunity to be heard	Court: Delay was unreasonable; procedural due process violated; Sept. 19 order vacated and case remanded
Whether the court improperly relied on Latika’s noncompliance with the Dec. 3 safety plan (coercive/invalid)	Latika: Dec. 3 plan was unsigned, coercive, and thus could not justify continued detention	State/guardian: safety‑plan evidence supported removal and continuation	Court: Did not reach this issue because the due process ruling was dispositive

In re Interest of Noah B., 295 Neb. 764, 891 N.W.2d 109 (addresses de novo appellate review in juvenile cases)
In re Interest of Joseph S. et al., 288 Neb. 463, 849 N.W.2d 468 (procedural due process questions are legal issues reviewed independently)
In re Interest of Nicole M., 287 Neb. 685, 844 N.W.2d 65 (parental rights as the starting point for family‑law analysis)
Jeremiah J. v. Dakota D., 287 Neb. 617, 843 N.W.2d 820 (recognizes parental liberty interest in custody and control)
Zahl v. Zahl, 273 Neb. 1043, 736 N.W.2d 365 (parental liberty interest entitled to due process protection)
In re Interest of Mainor T. & Estela T., 267 Neb. 232, 674 N.W.2d 442 (permits ex parte temporary custody but requires a prompt detention hearing)
In re Interest of R.G., 238 Neb. 405, 470 N.W.2d 780 (courts may not unreasonably delay notice/hearing after emergency removal)
In re Interest of D.M.B., 240 Neb. 349, 481 N.W.2d 905 (an eight‑month delay between temporary removal and evidentiary protections is unacceptable)
Sherman T. v. Karyn N., 286 Neb. 468, 837 N.W.2d 746 (framework for analyzing deprivation of liberty without due process)