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

Carmelo, born July 2015, had prior juvenile-court involvement (JV15-1285) that was dismissed and he was returned to mother Latika on Dec 2, 2015.
NFC and DHHS worked with Latika; safety plans were presented Dec 3 (unsigned) and updated Dec 31 (signed), which moved Carmelo to a maternal aunt due to safety concerns from drug use and domestic violence.
The State filed a new juvenile petition Jan 5, 2016 alleging lack of parental care; the juvenile court issued an ex parte order that same day granting DHHS immediate temporary custody.
A protective-custody hearing began Jan 21, 2016 but was continued multiple times (Feb, Mar, May, Aug); evidentiary hearings concluded Aug 2, 2016.
On Sept 19, 2016 the juvenile court entered an order continuing Carmelo’s temporary custody with DHHS; Latika appealed, claiming procedural due process violations based on the >8-month delay and alleged coercion of the safety plan.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether >8‑month delay between ex parte removal and final protective-custody order violated mother's due process rights	Latika: delay was unreasonable; deprived her of a prompt, meaningful hearing and liberty interest in custody	State/guardian: she received notice, services, and visitation; continuances were for scheduling/evidentiary reasons and afforded opportunity to be heard	Court: delay was unreasonable; procedural due process violated; Sept 19 order vacated and cause remanded
Whether reliance on Latika’s noncompliance with the Dec 3 safety plan violated due process (coercion/invalidity of plan)	Latika: Dec 3 plan was unsigned, invalid, and coercive; cannot be basis to continue custody	State: safety plan and subsequent proceedings justified removal/continuation	Court: did not reach this issue (decision disposed by first issue)

In re Interest of Noah B., 295 Neb. 764 (de novo review of juvenile cases)
In re Interest of Joseph S. et al., 288 Neb. 463 (procedural due process is a question of law)
In re Interest of Nicole M., 287 Neb. 685 (parental constitutional-rights starting point)
Jeremiah J. v. Dakota D., 287 Neb. 617 (parental liberty interest in custody and care)
Zahl v. Zahl, 273 Neb. 1043 (due process protection for parental rights)
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 R.G., 238 Neb. 405 (state may not unreasonably delay meaningful hearing after ex parte order)
Sherman T. v. Karyn N., 286 Neb. 468 (three-stage due process analysis in parental-rights context)
In re Interest of D.M.B., 240 Neb. 349 (8‑month delay between temporary removal and evidentiary safeguards unacceptable)