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

Carmelo G., born July 2015, was the subject of two juvenile matters; a July–December 2015 case (JV 15-1285) was dismissed and Carmelo returned to mother Latika on December 2, 2015.
NFC and DHHS were involved post-dismissal; Latika had documented mental‑health issues, a positive cocaine test, and multiple domestic‑violence incidents with Carmelo’s father, Deontrae.
NFC prepared a December 3, 2015 safety plan (not signed by Latika) and an updated, signed safety plan on December 31, 2015 placing Carmelo with a maternal aunt.
On January 5, 2016, the State filed a § 43‑247 petition and the juvenile court entered an ex parte order granting immediate temporary custody to DHHS; a protective custody hearing was set and began January 21 but was continued multiple times.
The protective custody evidentiary hearing concluded August 2, 2016; the juvenile court entered an order on September 19, 2016 continuing Carmelo in DHHS temporary custody. Latika appealed claiming procedural due process violations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Latika)	Defendant's Argument (State/Guardian)	Held
Whether the >8‑month delay between the ex parte temporary custody order and the protective custody order violated Latika’s procedural due process rights	The delay (Jan 5 to Sep 19) was unreasonable and deprived her of a prompt, meaningful hearing on custody	The delay was not unreasonable because Latika received notice, services, and visitation; continuances provided her a meaningful opportunity to be heard	Court held the >8‑month delay was unreasonable and violated Latika’s due process rights; vacated the Sept. 19 order and remanded
Whether the juvenile court improperly relied on Latika’s alleged noncompliance with the Dec. 3 safety plan because the plan was invalid/coercive	The Dec. 3 safety plan was invalid (unsigned/coercive), so noncompliance could not justify continued detention	The court and appellees relied on safety‑plan facts and subsequent events to justify detention	Court did not reach this issue (decision dispositive on delay)

In re Interest of R.G., 238 Neb. 405 (1991) (parents entitled to prompt hearing after ex parte custody order to avoid erroneous deprivation of parental rights)
In re Interest of Mainor T. & Estela T., 267 Neb. 232 (2004) (ex parte temporary custody permitted only for short duration; prompt detention hearing required)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognition of parents’ fundamental liberty interest in care and control of children)
In re Interest of D.M.B., 240 Neb. 349 (1992) (an 8‑month delay between temporary removal and evidentiary adjudication is not permissible)