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

Carmelo G., born July 2015, was the subject of juvenile proceedings after prior case (JV 15-1285) that resulted in temporary removal but was dismissed and Carmelo returned to mother Latika in December 2015.
NFC and DHHS were involved: safety plans were created Dec 3 and Dec 31, 2015 (Dec 31 plan moved Carmelo to maternal aunt); Dec 3 plan was not signed by Latika but she verbally agreed.
On January 5, 2016 the State filed a new § 43-247(3)(a) petition alleging drug use and domestic violence and the juvenile court issued an ex parte order granting immediate temporary custody of Carmelo to DHHS the same day.
A protective custody (detention) hearing began Jan 21, 2016 and was continued multiple times (Feb 10, Feb 24, Mar 10, May 13, Aug 2); evidentiary hearing concluded Aug 2, but the juvenile court’s protective custody order sustaining continued detention was not filed until Sept 19, 2016.
Latika appealed, arguing (1) unconstitutional delay (over 8 months) between ex parte removal and the protective custody order, and (2) due process violation because the juvenile court relied on an allegedly invalid/coercive Dec 3 safety plan.
The Nebraska Supreme Court held Latika’s procedural due process rights were violated by the unreasonable delay, vacated the Sept 19 order, and remanded for further proceedings; it did not reach the second assignment of error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Latika)	Defendant's Argument (State/Guardian)	Held
Whether an >8-month delay between an ex parte removal order and a protective custody order violated parental due process	Delay was unreasonable; parental liberty interest required a prompt meaningful hearing	Notice and repeated hearings were provided; delay served to give Latika opportunity to be heard and receive services	Held: Delay was unreasonable; due process violated; Sept 19 order vacated and case remanded
Whether reliance on Dec 3 safety plan (unsigned; allegedly coercive) violated due process	Dec 3 plan was invalid/coercive and should not support continued detention	Court relied on protective evidence and subsequent Dec 31 signed plan	Not reached (court decided case on delay issue)

In re Interest of Noah B., 295 Neb. 764 (de novo review of juvenile cases)
In re Interest of Joseph S. et al., 288 Neb. 463 (procedural due process is question of law)
In re Interest of Mainor T. & Estela T., 267 Neb. 232 (ex parte temporary custody permitted but prompt detention hearing required)
In re Interest of R.G., 238 Neb. 405 (parents entitled to meaningful hearing without unreasonable delay after ex parte removal)
Sherman T. v. Karyn N., 286 Neb. 468 (three-stage due process analysis for liberty interest deprivation)
In re Interest of D.M.B., 240 Neb. 349 (8-month delay between temporary removal and evidentiary safeguards cannot be condoned)