In re Interest of Michael N., 925 N.W.2d 51

Background

Michael N., born 2011 with trisomy 8, was found severely malnourished in July 2016; State filed juvenile petitions and he was placed in DHHS custody.
Multiple petitions and dismissals followed (cases JV 16-1277, JV 17-213, JV 18-382); County Attorney filed, dismissed, and refiled petitions; Court of Appeals reversed a continued-custody order and remanded for proper notice and detention hearings.
On remand the County Attorney moved to dismiss JV 17-213 and filed new petitions (JV 18-382); the juvenile judge signed an ex parte custody order, set a detention hearing, and later required the parents to appear for appointment of counsel.
Parents (Heather and Robert) filed motions to dismiss for lack of service and motions to recuse Judge Crnkovich; at hearings the judge denied recusal, removed the County Attorney’s Office, appointed a special prosecutor, and ultimately denied the motions to dismiss.
The juvenile court entered a detention order keeping Michael in DHHS custody; the County Attorney’s Office appealed its removal and appointment of the special prosecutor; the parents cross-appealed denial of dismissal, detention, failure to advise right to counsel, and denial of recusal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court could remove the County Attorney’s Office and appoint a special prosecutor	County Attorney: order was improper and deprived the office of its authority; appointment voids subsequent acts	Juvenile court: removal within court discretion due to problematic conduct; State continued to be represented	Dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction; order did not affect a substantial right and title-to-office challenges must be brought in a direct proceeding
Whether motions to dismiss for lack of service should have been granted	Heather/Robert: successive dismissals/refilings deprived them of due process; no proper service or notice of detention hearings	State/special prosecutor: parents (through counsel) appeared and actively litigated issues; service was later effected; detention hearing occurred	Denials affirmed: parents waived service objections by making general appearances (invoking court’s power via recusal motions and participation)
Whether the detention order was improper for lack of admissible evidence of service/notice	Heather/Robert: detention lacked sufficient admissible evidence of service; due process violated	State: counsel participated, service was proved at later hearing, parents waived defects; detention hearing occurred on the merits	Detention order affirmed; appealable and supported because parents waived service defects and counsel’s notice is imputed to clients
Whether Judge Crnkovich should have recused herself	Heather/Robert: judge’s prior remarks and requiring parents to appear created appearance of partiality/dual role as advocate	State: rulings and remarks were judicial, did not show personal bias; recusal motions addressed to judge’s discretion	Denial of recusal affirmed; objective appearance standard not met and judicial rulings alone insufficient to show bias

Key Cases Cited

In re Interest of Carmelo G., 296 Neb. 805 (standard: juvenile appeals reviewed de novo)
In re Interest of J.K., 300 Neb. 510 (motion to disqualify addressed to trial court discretion)
Jennifer T. v. Lindsay P., 298 Neb. 800 (final-order requirement for appellate jurisdiction)
Deines v. Essex Corp., 293 Neb. 577 (when an order affects a substantial right)
In re Interest of Noah B. et al., 295 Neb. 764 (order dismissing adjudication petition without leave affects State’s substantial right)
Richardson v. Griffiths, 251 Neb. 825 (disqualification of counsel does not affect client’s substantial right)
Atkins v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 192 Neb. 791 (challenge to title to office must be brought in a direct proceeding)
Breci v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 288 Neb. 626 (nonfinal orders that bear on correctness of final order may be reviewed)
In re Interest of Ty M. & Devon M., 265 Neb. 150 (detention orders are appealable final orders)
Torres v. Morales, 287 Neb. 587 (judge must avoid appearance of acting as advocate)
Tierney v. Four H Land Co., 281 Neb. 658 (recusal standards and effects on later orders)