In re Interest of Jeremy U., 304 Neb. 734

Background

Four days after Jeremy U. (born Oct. 2018) tested positive for methamphetamine, the State filed juvenile petitions under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) alleging the children “lack[ed] proper parental care” due to mother Tiffany G.’s fault or habits (drug use); a supplemental petition later alleged Savannah lacked care due to father Brandon M.
At the time of removal, Savannah (b. 2015) and Ashton (b. 2016) lived with their grandmother Tina and were provided food, clothing, and a bedroom; Jeremy was initially placed with a family friend and later with grandmother Tina.
DHHS intake and investigator testimony indicated Tiffany admitted long-term, near-daily methamphetamine use, used within the week of Jeremy’s birth, and believed Jeremy would test positive; Tiffany signed a safety plan and delegation-of-authority forms but the children were nevertheless removed to DHHS custody.
The juvenile court found some factual allegations true (Tiffany failed to provide parental care and stable housing; Brandon failed to provide safe housing for Savannah) but dismissed the petitions for lack of proof that the children were at a definite risk of harm and terminated jurisdiction.
On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court held (a) the juvenile court had subject-matter jurisdiction, (b) “parental” in “proper parental care” describes the type/nature of care (not the provider), (c) Jeremy was adjudicable because he was exposed in utero to methamphetamine, and (d) Savannah and Ashton were correctly not adjudicated because they were in the grandmother’s care and the State did not prove a definite risk of future harm or allege abandonment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject-matter jurisdiction	State: County had jurisdiction; venue allegations immaterial	Tiffany: There was no evidence of where incidents occurred so no jurisdiction	Court: Douglas County juvenile court had subject-matter jurisdiction and petition alleged residence in Nebraska; jurisdiction affirmed
Meaning of “lacks proper parental care” under § 43‑247(3)(a)	State: statute authorizes adjudication for children lacking parental care (State implicitly urged broad reading)	Tiffany: (cross-appeal challenged findings but issue framed)	Court: “Parental” describes type/nature of care (can be provided by non-parents); two-step inquiry — lack of parental-type care, then cause by fault/habits
Adjudication of newborn Jeremy (meth exposure)	State: Tiffany’s meth use in pregnancy and at delivery shows lack of proper parental care by reason of her habits	Tiffany: She executed a safety plan/delegated care; DHHS investigator did not consider removal necessary; no definite future risk asserted for newborn when not in her physical custody	Court: Jeremy was exposed in utero and tested positive; his lack of proper parental care by mother’s fault/habits was proven; juvenile court erred in dismissing his adjudication
Adjudication of Savannah and Ashton (and allegation re Brandon’s housing)	State: Older children at risk because of Tiffany’s drug use and, for Savannah, Brandon’s lack of housing/income	Tiffany/Brandon: Children lived with grandmother, had appropriate care, no evidence of exposure or threatened removal; State failed to show definite risk; State did not allege abandonment	Court: Affirmed dismissal for Savannah and Ashton — record showed appropriate care with grandmother, no evidentiary nexus to a definite risk of future harm; allegations about Brandon likewise insufficient

Key Cases Cited

In re Interest of Justine J. et al., 286 Neb. 250, 835 N.W.2d 674 (2013) (State must show evidentiary nexus to a definite risk of future harm to nonexposed children)
State v. Metteer, 203 Neb. 515, 279 N.W.2d 374 (1979) (definition of “proper parental care” and the kinds of obligations it entails)
In re Interest of M.B. and A.B., 239 Neb. 1028, 480 N.W.2d 160 (1992) (juvenile court may take jurisdiction if parent’s fault/habits indicate risk of harm even absent actual injury)
Jones v. State, 175 Neb. 711, 123 N.W.2d 633 (1963) (court may act to prevent a child from becoming neglected where there is reason to believe danger of future neglect exists)
In re Interest of Kane L. & Carter L., 299 Neb. 834, 910 N.W.2d 789 (2018) (reaffirming requirement that State establish a definite risk of future harm)
In re Interest of Lilly S. & Vincent S., 298 Neb. 306, 903 N.W.2d 651 (2017) (discussing risk-of-harm standard for adjudication)