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

Carmelo G., born July 2015, was the subject of two juvenile matters: an earlier case (JV 15-1285) that was dismissed and resulted in his return to mother Latika on December 2, 2015, and a new petition filed January 5, 2016 alleging lack of parental care due to Latika’s drug use and domestic violence.
Between December 3 and December 31, 2015, NFC/DHHS worked with Latika under safety plans (Dec. 3 plan unsigned; Dec. 31 plan signed) requiring drug testing, treatment, and no contact with the father; DHHS placed Carmelo with a maternal aunt on Dec. 31.
On January 5, 2016 the juvenile court issued an ex parte order granting immediate temporary custody to DHHS; a protective custody hearing was set and began January 21 but was continued multiple times.
Evidentiary hearings were held Jan 21, Feb 10 & 24, Mar 10, May 13, and Aug 2, 2016; the juvenile court entered a protective custody order sustaining continued temporary custody on September 19, 2016—over 8 months after the ex parte order.
Latika appealed, arguing (1) an unreasonable delay denied her procedural due process and (2) the December 3 safety plan was invalid/coercive; the Supreme Court vacated the Sept. 19 order and remanded based on the due process delay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Latika)	Defendant's Argument (State/Guardian ad litem)	Held
Whether more than 8‑month delay between ex parte removal and protective custody order violated procedural due process	Delay was unreasonable; deprived Latika of a prompt meaningful hearing and liberty interest in custody	Delay was reasonable because Latika received notice, services, and visitation and continuances were necessary to complete hearings	Held: Delay was unreasonable; due process violated; Sept. 19 order vacated and case remanded
Whether court could rely on Latika’s noncompliance with Dec. 3 safety plan (plan validity/coercion)	Dec. 3 plan was unsigned, coercive, and therefore invalid as basis for continued detention	State relied on safety plans and evidence of drug use/domestic violence to justify removal	Not reached (court declined to decide because first issue was dispositive)

In re Interest of R.G., 238 Neb. 405 (recognizes parents’ right to prompt hearing after ex parte removal)
In re Interest of Mainor T. & Estela T., 267 Neb. 232 (ex parte temporary custody allowed only short term; prompt detention hearing required)
In re Interest of D.M.B., 240 Neb. 349 (8‑month delay between temporary removal and adjudicative safeguards cannot be condoned)
Jeremiah J. v. Dakota D., 287 Neb. 617 (parental liberty interest in custody, care, and control)
Zahl v. Zahl, 273 Neb. 1043 (parental fundamental liberty interests afford due process protection)