In re Interest of Noah B.
295 Neb. 764
| Neb. | 2017Background
- The State filed an original juvenile petition (Mar 2014) alleging physical abuse by father Griel B. and failure to protect by mother Michaela B.; children were taken into DHHS custody and temporary orders limited parental contact.
- At the adjudication, testimony included physical-abuse allegations from Noah and Cheyenne; Cheyenne initially testified to sexual abuse by Griel but later recanted; Ciara (a cognitively impaired child) did not testify. The court adjudicated the children as abused/neglected based on physical abuse.
- After adjudication, Cheyenne and Ciara continued to make statements to providers alleging prior sexual abuse by Griel.
- The State filed a supplemental petition (Nov 2015) alleging inappropriate sexual contact by Griel and failure to protect by Michaela; the petition lacked specific dates and the State gave notice of hearsay statements made after the original adjudication recounting prior sexual abuse.
- Griel and Michaela moved to dismiss under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(6) asserting claim and issue preclusion because sexual-abuse allegations were or could have been litigated in the first adjudication. The juvenile court granted dismissal without converting to summary judgment.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court vacated the dismissal and remanded, holding the trial court erred by considering facts beyond the pleadings without converting the motion to summary judgment and explaining how claim preclusion should be applied in child-welfare supplemental petitions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Parents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dismissal of the supplemental petition was a final, appealable order | Dismissal foreclosed adjudication on sexual-abuse grounds but the State sought review | Dismissal was not final/appealable | Court: Order dismissing supplemental petition with no leave to amend affected a substantial right and was appealable (final) |
| Whether the supplemental petition was barred by claim preclusion | Claim preclusion should not bar adjudication where new evidence (post-adjudication statements) supports supplemental petition; child-welfare protection can outweigh strict preclusion | Supplemental petition raised allegations known before the first adjudication; preclusion applies to avoid relitigation | Court: Claim preclusion applies differently in child-welfare cases; dismissal was premature without factual development; vacated and remanded |
| Whether the juvenile court properly resolved preclusion on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion without converting to summary judgment | State relied on post-adjudication hearsay and other facts outside the pleading showing new evidence justifying the supplemental petition | Parents relied on the face of pleadings and prior record to show an insuperable bar to relief | Court: Trial court improperly considered matters outside the pleadings without converting the motion to summary judgment; should have allowed presentation of evidence or excluded nonpublic-record matters |
| Scope of claim preclusion in successive juvenile proceedings | State: New evidence arising after prior adjudication may justify a supplemental petition; prior evidence can be used with new evidence | Parents: Prior adjudication and testimony (including Cheyenne’s recantation) preclude relitigation on sexual-abuse grounds | Court: Claim preclusion may bar proof based solely on evidence known at the prior proceeding, but will not bar a supplemental petition that relies on evidence arising after the prior adjudication; parties may use preexisting evidence in conjunction with new evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of V.B. and Z.B., 220 Neb. 369 (Neb. 1985) (claim preclusion cannot settle a child’s welfare for all time; allows consideration of changed circumstances)
- In re Interest of Alan L., 294 Neb. 261 (Neb. 2016) (elements and limits of claim preclusion; successive juvenile proceedings)
- In re Interest of Marcus W. et al., 11 Neb. App. 313 (Neb. Ct. App. 2002) (successive parental-termination/juvenile proceedings and limits of preclusion)
- Marez v. Marez, 217 Neb. 615 (Neb. 1984) (stability of custody orders and effect of changed circumstances)
- People ex rel. L.S., 721 N.W.2d 83 (S.D. 2006) (cautious application of claim preclusion in child-welfare cases; protection of children may outweigh finality)
- In re Juvenile Appeal (83-DE), 190 Conn. 310 (Conn. 1983) (preclusion doctrines are flexible where mechanical application would frustrate child-welfare policies)
- DMK Biodiesel v. McCoy, 285 Neb. 974 (Neb. 2013) (standards for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and when matters outside the pleading convert the motion to summary judgment)