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

Infant Carmelo born July 2015; biological parents Latika G. (mother) and Deontrae H. (father).
Earlier juvenile case (JV 15-1285) resulted in temporary DHHS custody July–Dec 2015; that case was dismissed Dec 3, 2015 and Carmelo returned to Latika.
NFC/DHHS worked with Latika under a safety plan beginning Dec 3, 2015 due to positive drug test(s) and domestic violence reports; an updated safety plan Dec 31 placed Carmelo with a maternal aunt.
State filed a new § 43-247(3)(a) petition Jan 5, 2016 alleging lack of parental care (drug use, domestic violence, failure to comply with plan); the juvenile court issued an ex parte order that day granting immediate temporary custody to DHHS.
Protective custody/detention proceedings began Jan 21, 2016 but were continued repeatedly (hearings on Feb 10 & 24, Mar 10, May 13, Aug 2); the hearing concluded Aug 2 and the court entered an order Sept 19, 2016 continuing DHHS custody — over 8 months after the ex parte order.
Mother (Latika) appealed alleging procedural due process violations based on the prolonged delay and on alleged coercion/invalidity of the safety plan.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Latika)	Defendant's Argument (State / GAL)	Held
Whether >8-month delay between ex parte removal and final detention order violated due process	Delay was unreasonable; deprived Latika of a prompt meaningful hearing and liberty interest in custody	Delay was not unreasonable because Latika had notice, services, and visitation; continuances advanced meaningful opportunity to be heard	Court: Due process violated; >8-month delay unreasonable; vacated Sept 19 order and remanded
Whether December 3 safety plan could support continued detention because it was unsigned and coercive	Safety plan was invalid/coercive and thus could not justify continued detention	Safety plan and subsequent Dec 31 plan and services justified temporary removal/continuation	Court did not reach this issue (decision disposed by first issue)

In re Interest of Noah B., 295 Neb. 764 (appellate review in juvenile cases is de novo)
In re Interest of Joseph S. et al., 288 Neb. 463 (due process procedural question of law)
In re Interest of Nicole M., 287 Neb. 685 (parental constitutional rights are the starting point)
Jeremiah J. v. Dakota D., 287 Neb. 617 (parental liberty interest in custody and care)
Zahl v. Zahl, 273 Neb. 1043 (parents’ liberty interest afforded due process protection)
In re Interest of Mainor T. & Estela T., 267 Neb. 232 (ex parte temporary custody allowed but prompt detention hearing required)
In re Interest of R.G., 238 Neb. 405 (State may not unreasonably delay meaningful hearing after ex parte removal)
In re Interest of D.M.B., 240 Neb. 349 (8-month delay between temporary removal and adjudicative safeguards cannot be condoned)