In re Interest of L.M.
A-21-233
| Neb. Ct. App. | Dec 7, 2021Background
- Alisha M. is mother of three children (L.M., ~12; A.M., ~14; S.M., ~5); Lloyd M. (father of older two) lived in the home. DHHS intake after Oct. 17, 2020 call alleging Lloyd "whooped" L.M. with an extension cord.
- Eyewitness and police arrived Oct. 17: L.M. crying, asking for help, reported being beaten with an extension cord; officers saw injuries consistent with being struck. L.M. and S.M. stated Alisha was present and did not intervene. Photographs and medical exam corroborated injuries.
- Body‑camera footage captured Alisha minimizing concern for L.M., at one point saying he "needs his ass whooped," and later asking for L.M.’s shoes as he was leaving.
- Prior DHHS intake noted A.M. hospitalized for an abscessed tooth and numerous missed dental appointments; DHHS worker expressed concern about inadequate medical care and that Alisha discouraged S.M. from speaking with DHHS.
- Juvenile court adjudicated the children under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43‑247(3)(a) (finding counts 1(a), (c), (d), and (e) proved; count 1(b) dismissed). Alisha appealed claiming insufficient evidence; appellate court affirmed on de novo review.
Issues
| Issue | Alisha's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to protect L.M. from inappropriate physical contact | Alisha denied that she witnessed excessive discipline and argued the State did not prove she failed to protect L.M. | L.M. and S.M. testified Alisha was present and did not intervene; officers and medic corroborated injury and child reports. | Held: Preponderance shows Alisha failed to protect L.M.; allegation proven. |
| Failure to place herself in position to parent | Alisha argued no evidence she was unable to parent. | State pointed to firearms accessibility, physical discipline, and Alisha’s lack of concern as evidence she did not parent effectively. | Held: Sufficient evidence Alisha failed to place herself in a parenting position. |
| Failure to provide proper care/support/supervision | Alisha disputed lack of care findings. | State relied on physical abuse incidents, dental neglect, and other care lapses to show improper parental care. | Held: Evidence established juveniles lacked proper parental care due to Alisha’s fault/habits. |
| Definite risk of future harm / jurisdiction | Alisha argued no definite future risk so juvenile court lacked jurisdiction. | State argued cumulative record (abuse, neglect, weapons access, missed medical care) shows definite risk without intervention. | Held: Court found a definite risk of future harm and affirmed adjudication under § 43‑247(3)(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of Taeson D., 305 Neb. 279, 939 N.W.2d 832 (Neb. 2020) (juvenile cases reviewed de novo on the record)
- In re Interest of LeVanta S., 295 Neb. 151, 887 N.W.2d 502 (Neb. 2016) (appellate courts may give weight to trial court credibility findings)
- In re Interest of Trenton W. et al., 22 Neb. App. 976, 865 N.W.2d 804 (Neb. App. 2015) (at adjudication State must show present conditions fit statutory subsection and a definite risk of future harm)
- In re Interest of Jeremy U. et al., 304 Neb. 734, 936 N.W.2d 733 (Neb. 2020) (two‑step test for "proper parental care": showing lack of care and that it results from parent's fault or habits)