In re Interest of Carmelo G.
296 Neb. 805
Neb.2017Background
- Carmelo G., born July 2015, was the subject of prior juvenile proceedings (JV 15-1285) that were dismissed on Dec. 3, 2015, and he was returned to mother Latika G.
- NFC (noncourt team) and DHHS monitored Latika after dismissal; safety plans were proposed Dec. 3 and Dec. 31, 2015, after concerns including positive drug tests and multiple domestic-violence incidents with father Deontrae H.
- On Jan. 5, 2016, the State filed a § 43-247(3)(a) petition alleging Carmelo lacked parental care due to Latika’s drug use and domestic violence; the juvenile court issued an ex parte order the same day granting immediate temporary custody to DHHS.
- A protective custody hearing began Jan. 21, 2016, but was continued multiple times (Feb. 10 & 24; Mar. 10; May 13; Aug. 2); evidence was completed Aug. 2, and the juvenile court filed a protective custody order on Sept. 19, 2016, continuing DHHS custody.
- Latika appealed, arguing (1) an unreasonable delay (over 8 months) between the ex parte removal and the protective custody order violated procedural due process, and (2) the court improperly relied on the December 3 safety plan to justify continued detention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a >8‑month delay between ex parte removal and a protective custody order violated Due Process | Latika: delay unreasonably deprived her of a prompt meaningful hearing and parental liberty interest | State/guardian: Latika got notice, services, and visitation; continuances allowed meaningful opportunity to be heard | Held for Latika: delay was unreasonable; procedural due process violated; September 19 order vacated and case remanded |
| Whether the December 3 safety plan could justify continued detention | Latika: safety plan was unsigned/invalid and coercive, so cannot support detention | State: safety plans and services justified continued protective measures | Not reached (court disposed case on delay) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of R.G., 238 Neb. 405 (1991) (parents have right to a prompt meaningful hearing after ex parte custody orders)
- In re Interest of Mainor T. & Estela T., 267 Neb. 232 (2004) (ex parte temporary custody permitted only for short duration; prompt detention hearing required)
- Jeremiah J. v. Dakota D., 287 Neb. 617 (2014) (parental care/custody is a fundamental liberty interest)
- Sherman T. v. Karyn N., 286 Neb. 468 (2014) (three-stage due process analysis for liberty deprivations)
- In re Interest of Noah B. et al., 295 Neb. 764 (2017) (juvenile appeals reviewed de novo on the record)