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

Carmelo G., born July 2015, was the subject of two juvenile proceedings: an earlier case (JV 15-1285) that was dismissed and returned to mother Latika in December 2015, and a new petition filed January 5, 2016, alleging lack of parental care due to drug use and domestic violence.
NFC and DHHS professionals met with Latika in December 2015 and implemented safety plans (Dec. 3 and Dec. 31); the Dec. 31 plan placed Carmelo with a maternal aunt and was signed by participants.
On January 5, 2016, the court issued an ex parte order granting immediate temporary custody of Carmelo to DHHS; a protective custody hearing was initially set within a week but was continued repeatedly.
The protective custody hearing began Jan. 21, 2016, and was continued multiple times (Feb, Mar, May, Aug) before concluding Aug. 2; the juvenile court entered an order continuing DHHS custody on Sept. 19, 2016 — over 8 months after the ex parte order.
Latika appealed, arguing (1) an unreasonable delay between the ex parte removal and the protective custody order violated due process, and (2) reliance on her failure to comply with the Dec. 3 safety plan was improper because the plan was unsigned and coercive; the court found the due process claim dispositive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Latika)	Defendant's Argument (State/Guardian Ad Litem)	Held
Whether an >8‑month delay between an ex parte removal order and a protective custody/detention order violated Latika’s procedural due process rights	The delay was unreasonable and deprived Latika of a prompt, meaningful hearing on custody	Delay was not unreasonable because Latika received notice, visitation, and services during continuances; delay allowed meaningful opportunity to be heard	Court held the >8‑month delay was unreasonable and violated Latika’s procedural due process rights; vacated the Sept. 19 order and remanded
Whether reliance on Latika’s noncompliance with the Dec. 3 safety plan denied due process because the plan was unsigned/coercive	The Dec. 3 plan was invalid and coercive; thus noncompliance cannot justify continued removal	(State/guardian did not prevail on this point at appellate level; argued continued custody was justified)	Not reached — appellate court found the first issue dispositive and declined to decide this claim

In re Interest of Noah B., 295 Neb. 764 (Neb. 2017) (standard: juvenile appeals reviewed de novo)
In re Interest of Joseph S. et al., 288 Neb. 463 (Neb. 2014) (procedural due process is a question of law)
In re Interest of Nicole M., 287 Neb. 685 (Neb. 2014) (parental rights are fundamental liberty interests)
Jeremiah J. v. Dakota D., 287 Neb. 617 (Neb. 2014) (parental custody, care, and control are fundamental liberty interests)
Zahl v. Zahl, 273 Neb. 1043 (Neb. 2007) (natural parents’ liberty interest protected by due process)
In re Interest of Mainor T. & Estela T., 267 Neb. 232 (Neb. 2004) (ex parte removal permitted only for short duration; prompt detention hearing required)
In re Interest of R.G., 238 Neb. 405 (Neb. 1991) (State may not unreasonably delay notifying a parent or providing a meaningful hearing after ex parte removal)
In re Interest of D.M.B., 240 Neb. 349 (Neb. 1992) (an 8‑month delay between temporary removal and evidentiary safeguards cannot be condoned)
Sherman T. v. Karyn N., 286 Neb. 468 (Neb. 2013) (three‑stage due process analysis for deprivation of liberty interests)