In re Interest of Prince R., 308 Neb. 415

Prince, born Aug. 2015, was diagnosed in July 2019 with alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma (a rare pediatric cancer) with regional lymph node involvement; treating physicians recommended ~66 weeks of chemo plus surgery or radiation and warned that without treatment the disease would be fatal.
Prince began treatment and initially responded, but missed chemotherapy/radiation appointments beginning in September 2019; clinicians warned delays could reduce efficacy and increase relapse risk.
At an Oct. 1, 2019 meeting, parents (Mohamed and Abak) expressed resistance to the treatment and asked for a second opinion but committed to a next-day radiation appointment; Prince attended Oct. 2 radiation and then received no further documented treatment in Nebraska.
Parents left the state with Prince; DHHS and police located them in Tennessee on Oct. 26, 2019. No evidence showed Prince received medical care while away; he resumed treatment after return to DHHS custody.
The juvenile court adjudicated Prince as lacking proper parental care by reason of both parents’ fault/habits under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a); Mohamed appealed and Abak cross-appealed. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Mohamed/Abak)	Held
Whether Prince lacked proper parental care by reason of parents’ fault/habits under § 43-247(3)(a)	Parents intentionally removed Prince from treatment and state, stopping essential, potentially lifesaving care	Parents sought a second opinion; initially complied with treatment; no evidence they meant to stop care permanently	Court: Preponderance shows parents’ actions deprived Prince of proper parental care; adjudication affirmed
Whether there was a "definite risk" of future harm absent intervention	Expert testimony: delays reduce treatment efficacy and increase relapse risk; without treatment child would die	Defense: State must show actual harm from delay; evidence of no actual injury undermines risk finding	Court: Risk element satisfied; juvenile code requires prevention of future harm, not proof of actual harm
Whether Mohamed bore fault or fault is attributable solely to Abak	Parents jointly expressed opposition to treatment; Mohamed made statements questioning treatment and facilitated concealment	Mohamed claimed he deferred to Abak and sought records for a second opinion	Court: Crediting trial court, record shows Mohamed supported/stood by removal; both parents responsible

In re Interest of A.A. et al., 307 Neb. 817 (2020) (juvenile cases reviewed de novo; appellate court may give weight to trial court credibility findings)
In re Interest of Jeremy U. et al., 304 Neb. 734 (2020) (two-step test for § 43-247(3)(a): (1) lack of proper parental care and definite risk; (2) caused by parent's fault or habits)
In re Interest of Justine J., 286 Neb. 250 (2013) (adjudication phase aims to protect child’s interests; court examines current conditions)
State v. Metteer, 203 Neb. 515 (1979) (definition of "proper parental care" includes protection from situations dangerous to life or health)
In re Interest of Kane L. & Carter L., 299 Neb. 834 (2018) (juvenile adjudication under § 43-247(3)(a) incorporates a risk-of-harm component)
In re Interest of Vladimir G., 306 Neb. 127 (2020) (preponderance of the evidence defined as the greater weight of the evidence)