In re Interest of Carmelo G.
296 Neb. 805
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Carmelo G., born July 2015, was the subject of two juvenile proceedings: an earlier case (JV 15-1285) that was dismissed and Carmelo returned to mother Latika on December 2, 2015, and a new petition filed January 5, 2016, alleging lack of parental care due to Latika’s drug use and domestic violence.
- NFC and DHHS implemented safety plans (Dec. 3 and Dec. 31, 2015); the Dec. 31 plan removed Carmelo to a maternal aunt and was signed by participants.
- On January 5, 2016, the juvenile court issued an ex parte order granting immediate temporary custody to DHHS and set a protective custody hearing (initially for Jan. 12, later Jan. 21).
- The protective custody hearing began Jan. 21 but was continued multiple times (Feb. 10 & 24, Mar. 10, May 13, Aug. 2); evidence presentation concluded Aug. 2.
- The juvenile court issued a protective custody order on Sept. 19, 2016, continuing DHHS custody; Latika appealed, arguing procedural due process violations based on undue delay and invalid/coercive safety plan reliance.
Issues
| Issue | Latika's Argument | State/Guardian Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the >8‑month delay between ex parte removal and the protective custody order violated procedural due process | Delay was unreasonable and denied a prompt, meaningful hearing | Delay was not unreasonable because Latika had notice of continuances, services, and visitation; delay allowed meaningful opportunity to be heard | Court: Delay (>8 months) was unreasonable; due process violated; vacated order and remanded |
| Whether juvenile court could base continued detention on mother’s noncompliance with Dec. 3 safety plan (plan invalid/coercive) | Safety plan was unsigned/invalid and coercive, so noncompliance cannot justify continued detention | (Not reached) | Not reached — dispositive first issue rendered this unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognition of parental liberty interest)
- In re Interest of R.G., 238 Neb. 405 (parents entitled to prompt meaningful hearing after ex parte removal)
- In re Interest of Mainor T. & Estela T., 267 Neb. 232 (ex parte temporary custody permissible only for short duration; prompt detention hearing required)
- In re Interest of D.M.B., 240 Neb. 349 (8‑month delay between temporary removal and evidentiary protections is not condonable)
- Sherman T. v. Karyn N., 286 Neb. 468 (framework for analyzing deprivation of liberty interest/due process)
- Zahl v. Zahl, 273 Neb. 1043 (parental rights afforded due process protection)