In re Interest of Paxton H.
300 Neb. 446
| Neb. | 2018Background
- In Dec. 2014 the State adjudicated Paxton H., then 11, a juvenile under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) after repeated assaultive and defiant behavior; juvenile court placed him in DHHS custody.
- Paxton carried mental-health diagnoses including PTSD, TBI, ADHD, disruptive mood dysregulation, and reactive attachment disorder, and had experienced multiple failed transitions from residential care to his parents’ home.
- No Nebraska residential facility would accept Paxton; KidsTLC, a psychiatric residential treatment facility in Olathe, Kansas, admitted him in Jan. 2015 and again in July 2016.
- After a July 2017 review hearing the juvenile court ordered DHHS to ensure necessary services were available immediately upon Paxton’s discharge from KidsTLC and approved a plan for transition home.
- Paxton was discharged to his parents on Sept. 30, 2017. DHHS had not activated Medicaid or arranged required services within 11 days post-discharge. KidsTLC offered a transition program; DHHS refused, preferring local Nebraska respite providers.
- The juvenile court ordered DHHS to arrange and pay for Paxton to participate immediately in the KidsTLC transition program; DHHS appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHHS) | Defendant's Argument (Parents/DHHS opposer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court erred in ordering DHHS to arrange and pay for Paxton to attend KidsTLC transition program | DHHS: Local Nebraska respite services would better serve Paxton and distant KidsTLC was not in his best long‑term interest | Parents: KidsTLC transition program was available immediately and necessary to prevent a harmful gap in services after discharge | Court: Affirmed juvenile court — ordering KidsTLC services was in Paxton’s best interests given urgent need and lack of functioning local alternatives |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of Josue G., 299 Neb. 784 (de novo review in juvenile cases)
- In re Interest of Becka P., et al., 296 Neb. 365 (appellate duty to determine jurisdiction in juvenile appeals)
- In re Interest of J.M.N., 237 Neb. 116 (order directing DHHS to pay treatment costs is a final order)
- In re Interest of B.M.H., 233 Neb. 524 (treatment‑cost orders as final)
- In re Interest of Veronica H., 272 Neb. 370 (juvenile court may assent to or dissent from DHHS decisions regarding care and placement)
- In re Interest of Ty M. & Devon M., 265 Neb. 150 (appellate courts do not consider issues not presented to trial court)