In re Interest of Prince R., 954 N.W.2d 294

Prince (b. Aug 2015) was diagnosed in July 2019 with alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma of the right forearm with axillary node involvement; treating oncologist testified standard chemo + radiation over ~66 weeks offered ~60% long‑term, relapse‑free survival and that the disease would be fatal without treatment.
Treatment began and initially produced tumor shrinkage, but Prince began missing chemotherapy appointments in September 2019; at an Oct. 1, 2019 meeting parents expressed that the medicine was too strong, asked about reducing doses, and said they wanted a second opinion.
Parents brought Prince to radiation on Oct. 2 but thereafter left Nebraska with him; DHHS and law enforcement could not locate them; there is no evidence Prince received treatment between Oct. 2 and Oct. 26, when he was found in Tennessee and returned to DHHS custody.
Treating physician testified delays reduce treatment efficacy, increase relapse risk, and that chemotherapy requires regular monitoring (blood tests) and infection surveillance because of Prince’s central line.
The juvenile court adjudicated Prince as lacking proper parental care under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43‑247(3)(a), finding both Mohamed and Abak had the fault/habits that deprived Prince of necessary medical care; Mohamed appealed and Abak cross‑appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Prince lacked proper parental care under § 43‑247(3)(a)	Parents removed Prince from care and halted recommended, potentially lifesaving treatment → lacks proper care	Parents (Mohamed/Abak): they were only seeking a second opinion; had provided care previously	Adjudication affirmed: court found parents stopped treatment indefinitely and Prince lacked proper parental care
Whether there was a "definite risk" of future harm absent intervention	Expert: delays/interruptions increase relapse risk and can be fatal → definite future harm	Parents: no proof Prince actually suffered harm during the gap	Held for State: expert testimony established a definite risk of future harm without intervention
Whether fault/habits causing the lack of care are attributable to each parent (esp. Mohamed)	Both parents participated in removal/cessation; Mohamed expressed anti‑treatment views and failed to secure/transfer records	Mohamed: he intended only a second opinion and deferred to Abak; Abak: sought a second opinion	Held: court credited juvenile court credibility findings and found both Mohamed and Abak at fault; both adjudicated responsible

In re Interest of Jeremy U. et al., 304 Neb. 734 (2020) (two‑step test for § 43‑247(3)(a): lack of proper care + fault/habits of parent)
In re Interest of Justine J., 286 Neb. 250 (2013) (purpose of adjudication is to protect child interests)
State v. Metteer, 203 Neb. 515 (1979) (definition of "proper parental care" includes avoiding situations dangerous to life/limb)
In re Interest of Kane L. & Carter L., 299 Neb. 834 (2018) (risk‑of‑harm component: State need not show actual harm, but a definite risk of future harm)
In re Interest of Heather R. et al., 269 Neb. 653 (2005) (burden at adjudication: preponderance of the evidence)
In re Interest of A.A. et al., 307 Neb. 817 (2020) (appellate review in juvenile cases is de novo but trial court credibility findings may be afforded weight)