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

Carmelo G., born July 2015, had prior juvenile-court involvement (case No. JV 15-1285) that was dismissed on December 2, 2015, and he was returned to mother Latika G.'s care.
NFC and DHHS worked with Latika after dismissal; safety plans were implemented on December 3 and updated December 31, 2015, removing Carmelo to a maternal aunt due to domestic violence and mother’s positive drug test.
On January 5, 2016, the State filed a petition alleging Carmelo lacked proper parental care and the juvenile court issued an ex parte order granting immediate temporary custody to DHHS that same day.
A protective custody/detention hearing began January 21, 2016, but was continued multiple times (Feb 10, Feb 24, Mar 10, May 13, Aug 2); evidentiary proceedings concluded August 2.
On September 19, 2016, the juvenile court entered an order continuing Carmelo in DHHS temporary custody; Latika appealed, alleging procedural due process violations based on an 8+ month delay and on reliance on an allegedly invalid/coercive safety plan.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Latika)	Defendant's Argument (State / GAL)	Held
Whether the >8‑month delay between the ex parte temporary custody order and the protective custody order violated Latika’s procedural due process rights	Delay was unreasonable; deprived Latika of a prompt, meaningful hearing and her liberty interest in custody	Delay was not unreasonable because Latika received notice, services, and visits; continuances provided opportunity to be heard	Held for Latika: the >8‑month delay was unreasonable and violated procedural due process; September 19 order vacated and case remanded
Whether the juvenile court improperly based continued detention on Latika’s noncompliance with the Dec. 3 safety plan (plan invalid/coercive)	Safety plan was invalid/coercive and could not justify continued detention	Continued detention was justified by safety concerns and plan noncompliance	Not reached: court declined to decide because first issue was dispositive

In re Interest of Noah B., 295 Neb. 764 (standard for de novo juvenile review)
In re Interest of Joseph S., 288 Neb. 463 (procedural due process questions are legal and reviewed de novo)
In re Interest of Nicole M., 287 Neb. 685 (parents’ fundamental rights in family relations)
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 only short duration; prompt detention hearing required)
In re Interest of R.G., 238 Neb. 405 (state may not unreasonably delay providing a meaningful hearing after ex parte removal)
O’Connor v. Kaufman, 255 Neb. 120 (discussed in relation to R.G.)
In re Interest of D.M.B., 240 Neb. 349 (8‑month delay between temporary removal and hearing cannot be condoned)
Sherman T. v. Karyn N., 286 Neb. 468 (three‑stage due process analysis referenced)