844 N.W.2d 841
Neb. Ct. App.2014Background
- Laticia S., born Aug. 2005, missed over 22 unexcused school days between Aug. 2011 and Feb. 2012 while enrolled at Gomez Elementary; additional absences occurred in March–April 2012.
- The school learned the family home suffered a fire; the grandmother—not the parents—communicated with the school and requested transportation; transportation was arranged to begin Feb. 8 but was not used and absences continued.
- The school monitored attendance, generated warning lists and letters, and MacFarland (student personnel assistant) referred the matter to the county attorney after continued absences.
- The State filed a juvenile petition under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) alleging parental neglect of education; the juvenile court adjudicated Laticia within § 43-247(3)(a) and placed her in DHHS temporary custody (which may include the parental home).
- Stacy appealed (procedural briefing deficiencies noted); Michael cross-appealed arguing insufficient evidence of neglect and that the school failed to provide "reasonable efforts" to address absenteeism.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to adjudicate under § 43-247(3)(a) (educational neglect) | State: preponderance shows parents neglected to provide necessary education given chronic unexcused absences | Michael & Stacy: parents did not refuse/provide neglect; school/extraordinary circumstances (fire) excused absences | Court: Evidence supports adjudication; parents had duty to ensure attendance; State met preponderance standard |
| Foundation for attendance testimony | State: MacFarland had proper foundation as recordkeeper with access to school data | Stacy: MacFarland lacked foundation for "missed days" testimony | Court: Under plain‑error review, MacFarland’s testimony had sufficient foundation |
| Interaction between juvenile code and compulsory education statutes | State: juvenile code (§ 43‑247(3)(a)) is proper basis for jurisdiction; prosecutor may choose juvenile code over criminal truancy statutes | Defendants: compulsory attendance scheme / § 79‑209 required school to make reasonable efforts before juvenile filing | Court: Statutes are not pari materia; county attorney may proceed under juvenile code; school’s § 79‑209 "reasonable efforts" requirement does not apply pre‑adjudication under § 43‑247(3)(a) |
| Whether school provided "reasonable efforts" to cure absenteeism | State: school took steps (monitoring, letters, arranging transportation, referral to county attorney) | Michael: school failed to follow compulsory‑attendance procedures and did not provide reasonable efforts | Court: No requirement that school provide "reasonable efforts" before an adjudication under the juvenile code; no reversible error found |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of Samantha L. & Jasmine L., 286 Neb. 778, 839 N.W.2d 265 (2013) (briefing requirements and plain‑error standard for appellate review)
- In re Interest of Rylee S., 285 Neb. 774, 829 N.W.2d 445 (2013) (juvenile code appeals reviewed de novo with deference to credibility findings)
- State v. Rice, 204 Neb. 732, 285 N.W.2d 223 (1979) (statutes addressing different subject matters should not be construed in pari materia)
- In re Interest of Cornelius K., 280 Neb. 291, 785 N.W.2d 849 (2010) (purpose of adjudication is child protection; burden is preponderance under § 43‑247)
- State v. Null, 247 Neb. 192, 526 N.W.2d 220 (1995) (prosecutor may choose among applicable statutes when a single act violates multiple provisions)