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

Carmelo G., born July 2015, was subject to an earlier juvenile case (JV 15-1285) in which he was temporarily removed; that case was dismissed and Carmelo returned to mother Latika on December 2, 2015.
NFC/DHHS worked with Latika through a noncourt safety plan after December 3, 2015; safety plans addressed drug testing, treatment, domestic violence services, and exclusion of the father, Deontrae.
Reports of domestic violence on December 20, 2015, and subsequent investigation led DHHS to update the safety plan on December 31, 2015, and place Carmelo with a maternal aunt.
On January 5, 2016, the State filed a § 43-247 petition and the juvenile court issued an ex parte order granting immediate temporary custody to DHHS; a protective custody hearing was set and then continued multiple times.
The protective custody proceedings began January 21, 2016, continued across multiple dates, concluded August 2, 2016, and the juvenile court filed a protective custody order on September 19, 2016, continuing Carmelo in DHHS custody; Latika appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Latika)	Defendant's Argument (State / Guardian ad litem)	Held
Whether an >8-month delay between ex parte removal and final protective custody order violated due process	The delay was unreasonable and deprived Latika of a prompt, meaningful hearing on custody	Delay was not unreasonable because Latika received notice, services, and visitation; continuances permitted a full hearing	Court held the >8-month delay was unreasonable and violated Latika’s procedural due process rights; vacated order and remanded
Whether the December 3 safety plan could be used to justify continued detention (alternative claim)	Safety plan was invalid/coercive; cannot be basis for continued detention	Continued detention based on safety concerns and noncompliance with safety plan	Not reached (court disposed by deciding the unreasonable-delay due process violation)

In re Interest of Noah B., 295 Neb. 764 (Neb. 2017) (de novo review of juvenile cases on the record)
In re Interest of Joseph S. et al., 288 Neb. 463 (Neb. 2014) (procedural due process is a question of law)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parents have fundamental liberty interest in care and custody of children)
Zahl v. Zahl, 273 Neb. 1043 (Neb. 2007) (parental liberty interest entitled to due process protection)
In re Interest of Mainor T. & Estela T., 267 Neb. 232 (Neb. 2004) (ex parte temporary custody permitted but requires prompt detention hearing)
In re Interest of R.G., 238 Neb. 405 (Neb. 1991) (State may not unreasonably delay notifying parent or providing a meaningful hearing after ex parte removal)
In re Interest of D.M.B., 240 Neb. 349 (Neb. 1992) (an eight-month delay between temporary removal and adjudicative safeguards cannot be condoned)