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

Baby Carmelo born July 2015; mother Latika G. and father Deontrae H. were subject to an earlier juvenile-filed case (JV 15-1285) that was dismissed and Carmelo returned to Latika in December 2015.
NFC and DHHS had ongoing involvement: Latika had positive drug tests, reported domestic violence with Deontrae, and mental-health issues; NFC presented safety plans on Dec. 3 and Dec. 31, 2015.
On Jan. 5, 2016, the State filed a petition alleging Carmelo lacked proper parental care; the juvenile court entered 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 evidentiary hearing concluded Aug. 2, and the court entered a protective custody order on Sept. 19, 2016—over 8 months after the ex parte removal.
Latika appealed, claiming (1) an unreasonable delay between the ex parte removal and the protective-custody order that violated procedural due process, and (2) that reliance on noncompliance with the Dec. 3 safety plan was improper because the plan was invalid/coercive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the >8‑month delay between the ex parte removal and the protective‑custody order violated Latika’s procedural due process rights	Latika: delay was unreasonable and deprived her of a prompt, meaningful hearing and liberty interest in custody	State/guardian: Latika received notice, services, and visitation; continuances were to permit a meaningful opportunity to be heard	Court: Delay was unreasonable; due process violated; Sept. 19 order vacated and case remanded
Whether the juvenile court improperly relied on Latika’s noncompliance with the Dec. 3 safety plan (plan was allegedly invalid/coercive)	Latika: safety plan was unsigned, corrective changes made, and coercive—thus cannot justify continued removal	State: noncompliance supported continued detention and plan had been superseded by Dec. 31 plan	Court: Did not reach this issue because the due process ruling on delay was dispositive

In re Interest of Noah B. et al., 295 Neb. 764 (review of juvenile cases is de novo)
In re Interest of R.G., 238 Neb. 405 (parents entitled to prompt hearing after ex parte removal)
In re Interest of Mainor T. & Estela T., 267 Neb. 232 (ex parte temporary custody allowed but requires prompt detention hearing)
In re Interest of D.M.B., 240 Neb. 349 (8‑month delay between temporary removal and adjudicative safeguards cannot be condoned)
Jeremiah J. v. Dakota D., 287 Neb. 617 (parental liberty interest in care, custody, and control of children)
Sherman T. v. Karyn N., 286 Neb. 468 (three-stage due process analysis in parental-rights context)