In re Interest of Hla H.
25 Neb. Ct. App. 118
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Juvenile petition filed alleging Hla (born 2000) was habitually truant from Aug 12–Dec 18, 2015; petition included a description of efforts by the Lancaster County Attorney to refer the family to community resources.
- School held a collaborative plan meeting on Oct 26, 2015 with Hla, his mother Eh (Karen-speaking), an interpreter, and school staff; attendees signed a collaborative plan and Eh initialed receipt of a County Attorney form letter (Exhibit 3).
- Exhibit 3 (a form letter on Lancaster County Attorney letterhead with county seal and signature) referred the family to the Lancaster County Resource Guide on the school website and provided contact info for a Truancy Resource Specialist.
- At the meeting an interpreter explained how to access the services and gave Eh a telephone number; neither Hla nor Eh requested additional services; attendance continued to decline and the matter was later referred to the County Attorney.
- At adjudication the juvenile court admitted Exhibit 3 over hearsay and foundation objections, found excessive absenteeism proven, and adjudicated Hla under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(b). The court did not separately discuss § 43-276(2) compliance; Hla appealed arguing Exhibit 3 was inadmissible and efforts were not "reasonable."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of County Attorney form letter (Exhibit 3) | Exhibit 3 is hearsay and lacked foundation; witness couldn’t authenticate author/signature | Letter is a nonhearsay verbal act and was self-authenticating (county seal/signature) or otherwise properly authenticated by school witness | Admitted: letter is a verbal act (not hearsay) and self-authenticating under Neb. Evid. R. 902(1); witness testimony satisfied Rule 901 if needed |
| Whether County Attorney made "reasonable efforts" under § 43-276(2) before filing petition | Letter alone (a generic, English-only form) was insufficient, and Eh could not read English so she effectively didn’t receive referrals | County Attorney’s letter plus collaborative meeting with interpreter and available follow-up resources constituted reasonable efforts to refer to community-based services | County Attorney met § 43-276(2) as applied to habitual truancy: coordinated referral via letter, interpreter assistance, website and Truancy Resource Specialist contact satisfied "reasonable efforts" requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McCave, 282 Neb. 500 (Neb. 2011) (out-of-court statements that are verbal acts are not hearsay)
- State v. Draganescu, 276 Neb. 448 (Neb. 2008) (standard of review for hearsay rulings and appellate review distinction)
- In re Interest of Ashley W., 284 Neb. 424 (Neb. 2012) (Nebraska Evidence Rules govern adjudication hearings under the Juvenile Code)
- State v. Elseman, 287 Neb. 134 (Neb. 2014) (Rule 901 authentication does not impose a high hurdle)
- Richards v. McClure, 290 Neb. 124 (Neb. 2015) (authentication of anonymous letters contrasted with authenticated official documents)
- In re Interest of Samantha C., 287 Neb. 644 (Neb. 2014) (de novo appellate review of juvenile cases)
- Alisha C. v. Jeremy C., 283 Neb. 340 (Neb. 2012) (statutory interpretation is a question of law)
- In re Interest of Danajah G., 23 Neb. App. 244 (Neb. App. 2015) (statutory language must be given plain and ordinary meaning)