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

Carmelo G., born July 2015, was the subject of two juvenile matters: an earlier case (JV 15-1285) dismissed on Dec. 3, 2015, after which Carmelo was returned to his mother, Latika G.
NFC and DHHS worked with Latika via safety plans after drug use and domestic-violence reports; an unsigned Dec. 3 safety plan (later corrected) and a signed Dec. 31 plan placed Carmelo with maternal relatives.
On Jan. 5, 2016, the State filed a petition alleging lack of parental care by reason of Latika’s drug use and domestic violence and obtained an ex parte order granting DHHS immediate temporary custody.
A protective custody (detention) hearing began Jan. 21, 2016, but was continued repeatedly (Feb. 10 & 24, Mar. 10, May 13, Aug. 2); the evidentiary hearing concluded Aug. 2.
On Sept. 19, 2016 the juvenile court entered an order continuing Carmelo in DHHS temporary custody; Latika appealed, asserting violation of procedural due process from an unreasonable delay and challenge to reliance on the Dec. 3 safety plan.
The Nebraska Supreme Court found Latika’s procedural due process rights violated by the more-than-eight-month delay between the ex parte removal order (Jan. 5) and the protective custody order (Sept. 19), vacated the order, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Latika)	Defendant's Argument (State / GAL)	Held
Whether an >8-month delay between ex parte removal and final protective custody order violated due process	Delay was unreasonable; deprived Latika of prompt meaningful hearing on custody	Delay was not unreasonable because Latika received notice, services, and visitation and continuances were for completing the record	Held for Latika: delay was unreasonable; due process violated; order vacated and remanded
Whether reliance on the Dec. 3 safety plan to continue detention was coercive/invalid	(Raised below; not reached) The Dec. 3 plan was unsigned and coercive, so detention based on noncompliance was improper	State argued continuance and reliance on safety plans justified detention	Not reached — court resolved case on delay, declined to address this issue

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 permitted but requires prompt detention hearing)
In re Interest of D.M.B., 240 Neb. 349 (8‑month delay between temporary removal and evidentiary safeguards cannot be condoned)
In re Interest of Noah B. et al., 295 Neb. 764 (juvenile cases reviewed de novo on the record)
Jeremiah J. v. Dakota D., 287 Neb. 617 (parental liberty interest in care and custody is fundamental)
In re Interest of Nicole M., 287 Neb. 685 (parental rights are constitutional starting point in family-state disputes)
Zahl v. Zahl, 273 Neb. 1043 (parental liberty interest afforded due process protection)