In re Interest of Carmelo G.
296 Neb. 805
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Carmelo G., born July 2015, was the subject of two juvenile proceedings: an earlier case (JV 15-1285) in which protective custody was initially continued but later dismissed and Carmelo returned to his mother, Latika, on December 2, 2015.
- NFC and DHHS worked with Latika after December 3, 2015, implementing safety plans requiring drug testing, treatment, domestic violence classes, and exclusion of the father, Deontrae; the December 31 safety plan moved Carmelo to a maternal aunt and was signed by participants.
- On January 5, 2016, the State filed a new 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 immediate temporary custody to DHHS.
- A protective custody/detention hearing was scheduled and began January 21, 2016, but was continued repeatedly (Feb 10, Feb 24, Mar 10, May 13, Aug 2). The evidentiary hearing concluded Aug 2, and the juvenile court filed a protective custody order on September 19, 2016.
- Latika appealed, arguing (1) an unreasonable delay (over 8 months) between the ex parte removal and the final protective custody order violated her procedural due process rights, and (2) reliance on her noncompliance with the December 3 safety plan (which she says was invalid/coercive) denied due process.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court found a due-process violation based on the unreasonable delay, vacated the September 19 order, and remanded for further proceedings; the court did not reach the second argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Latika) | Defendant's Argument (State / GAL) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the >8-month delay between ex parte removal and protective custody order violated procedural due process | Delay was unreasonable; Latika’s liberty interest in custody was denied without a meaningful, prompt hearing | Delay was not unreasonable because Latika had notice, services, and visitation; continuances provided opportunity to be heard | Yes. The delay was unreasonable and violated Latika’s due process rights; order vacated and case remanded. |
| Whether the juvenile court could rely on Latika’s noncompliance with the Dec. 3 safety plan (validity/coercion) to continue detention | The Dec. 3 safety plan was invalid and coercive; cannot be basis for continued detention | The court used noncompliance as justification for continued custody | Not reached (court disposed of appeal on delay ground). |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of Noah B., 295 Neb. 764 (de novo review of juvenile records)
- In re Interest of Joseph S. et al., 288 Neb. 463 (procedural-due-process standard is question of law)
- In re Interest of Nicole M., 287 Neb. 685 (parental rights as primary constitutional starting point)
- Jeremiah J. v. Dakota D., 287 Neb. 617 (parental custody as fundamental liberty interest)
- Zahl v. Zahl, 273 Neb. 1043 (due process protection for parental custody)
- In re Interest of Mainor T. & Estela T., 267 Neb. 232 (ex parte custody allowed only short duration; prompt detention hearing required)
- In re Interest of R.G., 238 Neb. 405 (parents entitled to timely meaningful hearing after ex parte removal)
- Sherman T. v. Karyn N., 286 Neb. 468 (three-stage due-process analysis for liberty deprivation)
- In re Interest of D.M.B., 240 Neb. 349 (8-month delay between temporary removal and adjudicatory safeguards is unacceptable)
- O'Connor v. Kaufman, 255 Neb. 120 (cited in context of prior precedent discussion)
- Medicine Creek v. Middle Republican NRD, 892 N.W.2d 74 (appellate court will not decide unnecessary issues)