In re Interest of Nedhal A.
289 Neb. 711
| Neb. | 2014Background
- Juvenile Nedhal A. admitted to criminal mischief; disturbing the peace charge dismissed; disposition set for Feb 4, 2014.
- While charges were pending, Nedhal ran from multiple group-home placements, had numerous prior placements, and was out of parental control during absences.
- DHHS arranged placement at Salvation Army Cares (a group home) which accepted Nedhal, but DHHS and probation staff expressed concern due to her history of running away.
- Juvenile court found intensive supervised probation at the Youth Rehabilitation and Treatment Center (YRTC) appropriate, concluding all levels of probation and community-based options had been exhausted and immediate placement was necessary.
- Appellant appealed, arguing the court erred because the record did not show that all probation levels and community-based options had been exhaustively considered, and the Office of Probation Administration had not reviewed alternatives.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 43-286(1)(b)(ii) permits commitment to YRTC absent a thorough exhaustion review | Appellant: court lacked statutory prerequisite; alternatives not exhausted | State: juvenile court properly found exhaustion and urgent necessity despite Salvation Army acceptance | Reversed: commitment premature; statute requires Office of Probation Administration review that alternatives were thoroughly considered before YRTC placement |
| What "exhausted all levels of probation supervision and options for community-based services" requires | Appellant: means meaningful review and consideration of probation alternatives, not mere past failures | State: argued existing placements/safety concerns justified YRTC without formal probation office review | Court: "exhaust" means thoroughly study and consider available probation/community options; Office of Probation Administration must report whether untried options have reasonable possibility of success |
| Whether previous non-probation supervisory measures must be retried before YRTC | Appellant: prior DHHS measures shouldn’t bar consideration of probation alternatives | State: prior failures justify confinement | Court: prior unsuccessful measures need not be repeated, but their effectiveness must be considered in the review; repetition of proven-ineffective measures not required |
| Whether immediate placement at YRTC may occur without Office of Probation report | Appellant: No — report required to satisfy exhaustion prong | State: Court can rely on record/findings without that report | Court: Office of Probation Administration review and report are required to show alternatives were thoroughly considered; absent that, YRTC placement is improper |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of Kodi L., 287 Neb. 35 (appellate courts review juvenile cases de novo)
- In re Interest of Marcella G., 287 Neb. 566 (statutory interpretation in juvenile code reviewed de novo)
- In re Interest of Violet T., 286 Neb. 949 (statutory interpretation principles applied in juvenile context)