In re Interest of Giavonni P.
304 Neb. 580
| Neb. | 2019Background
- Giavonni P., adjudicated delinquent/neglect, had been placed in various facilities since 2010; in Oct 2017 he was placed at Capstone (a Michigan PRTF) and on juvenile probation.
- At Capstone he allegedly refused meds/therapy, was violent, and fled; returned to Nebraska and was placed in secure detention (DCYC) where aggression continued.
- Juvenile court held a placement review (Nov 9, 2018) and ordered that Giavonni be placed in an appropriate secure PRTF by Nov 26, 2018, and if not accepted, delivered to Lincoln Regional Center (LRC) to remain until PRTF placement or further court order.
- Department of Health and Human Services appealed the placement orders, arguing the court usurped the Department/LRC authority to control admissions/discharges and could not set a date-certain placement.
- While appeals were pending Giavonni was moved from the LRC to an out-of-state PRTF; the guardian ad litem moved to dismiss as moot but the court invoked the public-interest exception and reached the merits.
- Supreme Court affirmed: the juvenile court’s orders were final, the court had statutory authority to order placement at LRC when PRTF placement was unavailable, and the order did not improperly override LRC/Department authority to manage admissions.
Issues
| Issue | Department's Argument | Guardian ad litem / Juvenile court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Nov 9 order conditional and thus nonfinal? | Order was conditional on a future event (PRTF acceptance) and therefore not a final judgment. | The Nov 27 placement check and orders rendered the earlier order operative and final. | Order was final; not merely conditional in context of subsequent court action. |
| Did the order affect a substantial right making it appealable? | It did not affect a substantial right of the Department. | The order affected the Department’s role in directing behavioral services and admissions at LRC. | It affected a substantial right in a special proceeding; appealable. |
| Is the appeal moot because Giavonni was later moved from LRC? | Appeals are moot; but public-interest exception should apply due to ongoing similar placements. | Moot as to Giavonni, but merits reach justified by public-interest exception. | Case was moot as to Giavonni but exceptions applied; court addressed merits. |
| Did the juvenile court exceed authority by ordering placement at LRC or setting a date? | Court usurped Department/LRC exclusive authority to prioritize admissions and set admissions/discharges; cannot mandate date-certain placement. | Juvenile courts have statutory authority to order placement in institutions for treatment; order did not commandeer admission priorities. | Juvenile court had authority under statutes to order LRC placement when PRTF unavailable; order not read as improper date-certain priority over Department. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jensen v. Jensen, 275 Neb. 921 (2008) (discusses conditional judgments and when a judgment fails to "perform in praesenti")
- In re Interest of Reality W., 302 Neb. 878 (2019) (juvenile cases reviewed de novo; juvenile proceedings are special proceedings)
- In re Interest of Michael N., 302 Neb. 652 (2019) (juvenile court orders in special proceedings may be final and appealable if they affect substantial rights)
- State ex rel. Peterson v. Ebke, 303 Neb. 637 (2019) (mootness doctrine and public-interest exception principles)