In re Interest of Kane L. & Carter L.
910 N.W.2d 789
Neb.2018Background
- Mother Angela and father Scott had two minor children at issue: Carter (b. 2000) and Kane (b. 2008). Both children were removed after Angela’s positive hospital drug screen and baby’s positive cord-blood drug test for methamphetamine and other substances.
- Angela admitted methamphetamine and marijuana use during pregnancy; she denied drug use in the family home and initially refused drug testing for Kane. Scott initially denied use but later consented to Kane’s testing.
- Kane’s toenail test confirmed environmental exposure to methamphetamine. Scott’s saliva test produced a presumptive positive that later tested negative amid collection issues. Carter had been on juvenile probation and had prior positive drug screens of his own.
- Ex parte temporary custody was granted Feb 17, 2017; petition to adjudicate filed Feb 21. Counsel was appointed, answers were filed, and various hearings occurred; a detention/protective custody hearing was offered/waived on March 1 per the journal entries.
- The juvenile court adjudicated Kane under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) (lack of proper parental care by reason of parent habits) but declined to adjudicate Carter. Appeals followed by Angela (from Kane adjudication and evidentiary rulings) and by the county (from refusal to adjudicate Carter).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were Angela’s due-process rights violated by not holding a prompt protective custody/detention hearing? | Angela: delay and failure to hold hearing denied meaningful process after ex parte order. | State/Juvenile court: counsel appointed quickly, rights advised, hearing was offered and waived; no unreasonable delay. | No due-process violation; appellate court gave weight to waiver/record and affirmed. |
| Admissibility: Were cord-blood and toenail drug-test results properly authenticated (chain of custody)? | Angela: county failed to establish chain of custody and proper foundation for tests. | State: collection and lab testimony provided sufficient foundation for toenail; cord-blood evidence cumulative given other admissions/tests. | Toenail test admission upheld; any error admitting cord-blood results was harmless. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to adjudicate Kane under § 43-247(3)(a) | Angela: no evidentiary nexus showing parental meth use caused definite risk of future harm to Kane. | State: Kane’s confirmed environmental exposure, parents’ drug use admissions/concerns created nexus and risk. | Adjudication of Kane affirmed; preponderance showed risk of future harm. |
| Whether juvenile court erred in declining to adjudicate Carter | County: Carter faced same present/future risk of harm from parental meth use and should be adjudicated. | Angela/Juvenile court: Carter’s recent detention center placement meant he was not similarly situated at the time. | Reversed: Carter should be adjudicated—return to home shortly before removal and prior drug-related issues supported risk of future harm. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of Carmelo G., 296 Neb. 805 (2017) (parental due-process right against unreasonable delay between ex parte custody and detention hearing)
- In re Interest of R.G., 238 Neb. 405 (1991) (14-day delay near brink of unreasonableness; prompt detention hearing required)
- In re Interest of LeVanta S., 295 Neb. 151 (2016) (appellate de novo review of juvenile adjudications; weight to factfinder’s observations)
- State v. Glazebrook, 282 Neb. 412 (2011) (chain-of-custody and foundation for introduction of physical/forensic evidence)
- In re Interest of Justine J., 286 Neb. 250 (2013) (purpose of adjudication and standard for establishing risk of future harm under juvenile code)