In re Interest of Elijah P.
A-15-946
| Neb. Ct. App. | Feb 21, 2017Background
- Parents Erika D. and Joshua P. cared for five children; Elijah (biological to Joshua, living with Erika) suffered a skull fracture, subdural hematoma, and significant brain injury discovered January 12, 2015 after episodes of stiffness the prior night.
- Medical opinion (Dr. Suzanne Haney, child-abuse pediatrician) concluded Elijah suffered nonaccidental abusive head trauma and possibly two separate incidents of trauma; police had no "hard evidence" contradicting the medical opinion.
- State filed petitions seeking adjudication under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) and termination of parental rights under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292(2) (neglect) and (9) (aggravated circumstances); the juvenile court admitted Dr. Haney’s expert testimony after a Daubert/Schafersman hearing and adjudicated and terminated parental rights.
- Erika and Joshua challenged admissibility of the expert testimony and statutory grounds for termination; appeals followed (Erika appealed; Joshua cross-appealed).
- The Nebraska Court of Appeals reviewed de novo: it affirmed adjudication but reversed termination, holding statutory grounds for termination were not proven by clear and convincing evidence and that the trial court abdicated its Daubert gatekeeping duty for the adjudication phase.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Erika / Joshua) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Dr. Haney’s opinion (Daubert / Schafersman) for adjudication | Testimony reliable and admissible to prove nonaccidental injury | Methodology for diagnosing abusive head trauma is unreliable and must be excluded absent proper gatekeeping | Court: Juvenile court abdicated gatekeeping by failing to explain its Daubert analysis; admission for adjudication was erroneous |
| Termination under § 43-292(9) (aggravated circumstances) | Parents inflicted injury or delayed care such that aggravated circumstances exist | No clear-and-convincing proof of intentional abuse or conscious refusal to seek care | Court: Reversed termination under § 43-292(9); evidence did not meet clear-and-convincing standard for aggravated circumstances |
| Termination under § 43-292(2) (substantial, continuous, or repeated neglect) | Series of medical/dental delays and failures show repeated neglect meriting termination | Isolated/limited failures, no pattern of substantial or continuous neglect; children otherwise received routine care | Court: Reversed termination under § 43-292(2); evidence insufficient to show the statutory threshold of substantial and continuous or repeated neglect |
| Adjudication under § 43-247(3)(a) (lack of parental care by reason of fault or habits) | Nonaccidental brain bleed plus parents provided no plausible explanation => juvenile-court jurisdiction appropriate | Admission of expert was improper; absent it, State cannot prove jurisdiction | Court: Affirmed adjudication; even excluding Dr. Haney’s opinion, police testimony that medical personnel labeled second injury nonaccidental and parents’ inability to explain supported adjudication by a preponderance |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (gatekeeping standard for expert evidence)
- Schafersman v. Agland Coop, 262 Neb. 215 (2001) (Nebraska adoption of Daubert-like gatekeeping)
- Zimmerman v. Powell, 268 Neb. 422 (trial court must make specific findings to show performance of gatekeeping duty)
- In re Interest of Rebecka P., 266 Neb. 869 (due process controls expert testimony in termination proceedings)
- In re Interest of Jac’Quez N., 266 Neb. 782 (aggravated circumstances where parents delayed care for obvious, serious injuries)
- In re Interest of Ryder J., 283 Neb. 318 (aggravated circumstances typically involve severe, intentional abuse)
- In re Interest of Anaya, 276 Neb. 825 (State must show definite risk of future harm at adjudication)