In re Interest of Carmelo G., 296 Neb. 805

Carmelo G., born July 2015, was subject to an earlier juvenile case (JV 15-1285) that resulted in temporary removal July–December 2015 and dismissal/adjudication hearing ending with Carmelo returned to mother, Latika, on December 2, 2015.
NFC/DHHS worked with Latika through a noncourt safety plan after December 3, 2015, addressing drug use, treatment, random testing, and domestic-violence avoidance; an initial safety plan (Dec. 3) was unsigned but verbally agreed to; an updated, signed plan placed Carmelo with a maternal aunt on Dec. 31, 2015.
On Jan. 5, 2016, the State filed a § 43-247(3)(a) petition alleging lack of parental care due to Latika’s drug use and domestic violence; the juvenile court issued an ex parte order the same day granting immediate temporary custody to DHHS.
A protective custody hearing began Jan. 21, 2016, but was continued multiple times (Feb. 10 & 24; Mar. 10; May 13; Aug. 2); the hearing concluded Aug. 2, and the court entered an order on Sept. 19, 2016 continuing temporary custody with DHHS.
Latika appealed, arguing (1) unreasonable delay (~8+ months) between the ex parte removal and the protective custody order violated due process, and (2) the court improperly relied on noncompliance with the Dec. 3 safety plan because it was invalid/coercive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Latika)	Defendant's Argument (State/Guardian)	Held
Whether the >8‑month delay between ex parte removal and the protective custody order violated Latika’s procedural due process rights	The delay was unreasonable and deprived Latika of a prompt, meaningful hearing on custody	Delay was not unreasonable because Latika received notice, services, and interim visitation; continuances gave her a meaningful opportunity to be heard	Court held the delay was unreasonable; due process violated — vacated Sept. 19 order and remanded
Whether the juvenile court improperly based continued detention on Latika’s noncompliance with the Dec. 3 safety plan (plan allegedly invalid/coercive)	The Dec. 3 safety plan was unsigned, invalid, and coercive; it could not justify continued removal	(State/Guardian) contended continuances and evidence supported continued custody; did not primarily press this on appeal	Court did not reach merits of this issue (dispositive ruling on delay)

In re Interest of Noah B. et al., 295 Neb. 764 (de novo review of juvenile cases)
In re Interest of Joseph S. et al., 288 Neb. 463 (procedural due process question of law)
In re Interest of Mainor T. & Estela T., 267 Neb. 232 (prompt detention hearing required after ex parte temporary custody)
In re Interest of R.G., 238 Neb. 405 (parents’ right to a meaningful, timely hearing after ex parte order)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parental liberty interest in custody and control of children)
In re Interest of D.M.B., 240 Neb. 349 (8‑month delay between temporary removal and evidentiary safeguards cannot be condoned)