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

Carmelo G., born July 2015, was the subject of prior juvenile case (JV 15-1285) in mid‑2015; that case was dismissed and Carmelo returned to his mother, Latika, on December 2, 2015.
After dismissal, Nebraska Families Collaborative (NFC) worked with Latika via a noncourt safety plan addressing drug use and domestic violence; NFC prepared a December 3 safety plan (unsigned by Latika) and an updated, signed December 31 safety plan placing Carmelo with a maternal aunt.
On January 5, 2016, the State filed a petition alleging Carmelo lacked proper parental care due to Latika’s drug use and domestic violence; the juvenile court issued an ex parte order that same day granting DHHS temporary custody and set a protective custody hearing.
The protective custody hearing began January 21, 2016, but was continued repeatedly (Feb. 10 & 24, Mar. 10, May 13, Aug. 2); the evidentiary hearing concluded Aug. 2, and the court entered a protective custody order sustaining continued temporary custody on Sept. 19, 2016—over 8 months after the ex parte order.
Latika appealed, arguing (1) the more than 8‑month delay between the ex parte order and the protective custody order violated her procedural due process rights and (2) the juvenile court improperly relied on noncompliance with the December 3 safety plan because that plan was invalid/coercive. The Supreme Court vacated the Sept. 19 order and remanded for further proceedings based on the due process delay.

Issue	Latika's Argument	State/Guardian Argument	Held
Whether an >8‑month delay between an ex parte emergency custody order and the protective custody/detention order violated Latika's procedural due process rights	The delay was unreasonable and deprived her of a prompt, meaningful hearing on custody	Delay was not unreasonable because Latika received notice, services, and visitation; continuances permitted fuller 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 the juvenile court improperly based continued detention on Latika's noncompliance with the Dec. 3 safety plan (alleged invalid/coercive plan)	The Dec. 3 safety plan was unsigned, procedurally deficient, and coercive; thus it could not justify continued detention	Court reliance on noncompliance was proper given safety concerns and later signed Dec. 31 plan	Not reached—court found the due process delay dispositive and did not decide this issue

In re Interest of R.G., 238 Neb. 405 (recognizing parents’ right to a prompt hearing after ex parte custody; unreasonable delay violates due process)
In re Interest of Mainor T. & Estela T., 267 Neb. 232 (explaining that ex parte temporary custody is permissible only for short duration and requires prompt detention hearing)
In re Interest of D.M.B., 240 Neb. 349 (holding that an 8‑month delay between temporary removal and adjudicatory safeguards cannot be condoned)
Jeremiah J. v. Dakota D., 287 Neb. 617 (discussing parental liberty interest in child custody)
In re Interest of Noah B. et al., 295 Neb. 764 (juvenile cases reviewed de novo on the record)