In re Interest of Madeline C.
A-21-110, A-21-111
| Neb. Ct. App. | Jul 27, 2021Background
- Madeline C., adjudicated a juvenile for two misdemeanor offenses, was placed on concurrent 9‑month probations beginning January 16, 2020.
- After admitted probation violations, the court placed her in residential treatment on July 16, 2020; the original probation term was not explicitly extended then.
- On September 1, 2020, a probation officer submitted a proposed order (signed by Madeline and a parent) extending probation six months to April 16, 2021; the court signed that order (reflected as the September 3, 2020, order).
- On January 7, 2021, following a probation review at which Madeline had done well, the juvenile court sua sponte extended her probation to the age of majority (about four additional years) without any motion to revoke or allegations of violation.
- Madeline appealed both the September 3, 2020, and January 7, 2021, orders on February 5, 2021. The appellate court found the appeal from the September 3 order untimely and vacated the January 7 order for failure to follow statutory procedures, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Madeline's Argument | State/Junior Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal from Sept. 3, 2020 order | Appeal from Sept. 3 order was proper | Appeal must be filed within 30 days to invoke jurisdiction | Appeal as to Sept. 3 order dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (untimely) |
| Whether Jan. 7, 2021 order lawfully modified probation under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43‑286(5) | Court lacked authority to extend probation without a motion, allegation of violation, or compliance with § 43‑286(5) procedures | Court acted during a probation review and could extend supervision | Jan. 7 order vacated: statutory procedures under § 43‑286(5) were not followed, so court exceeded authority |
| Due process claim (right to notice/hearing/confrontation) | Extension violated due process because no notice, motion, or hearing safeguards were provided | Not argued in detail after procedural ruling | Not reached by the court (declined to decide) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of Gabriel P., 29 Neb. App. 431, 954 N.W.2d 305 (Neb. App. 2021) (standard of review and juvenile appeal context)
- In re Interest of Victor L., 309 Neb. 21, 958 N.W.2d 413 (Neb. 2021) (appellate jurisdiction and preliminary jurisdictional review)
- In re Interest of Jesse D., 15 Neb. App. 534, 732 N.W.2d 694 (Neb. App. 2007) (requirement to file notice of appeal within 30 days and pay docket fee)
- State v. Reames, 308 Neb. 361, 953 N.W.2d 807 (Neb. 2021) (timeliness of appeal is jurisdictional)
- In re Interest of Josue G., 299 Neb. 784, 910 N.W.2d 159 (Neb. 2018) (§ 43‑286(5) procedures required before changing dispositions; juveniles' procedural protections)
- In re Interest of Iyana P., 25 Neb. App. 439, 907 N.W.2d 333 (Neb. App. 2018) (court may not change disposition without § 43‑286(5) compliance)
