In re Interest of Reality W.
302 Neb. 878
| Neb. | 2019Background
- Reality W., age 15, was alleged habitually truant (Sept. 1, 2017–Mar. 7, 2018); school Synergy records showed 274 class-period unexcused absences → 68.5 days unexcused.
- Lincoln Public Schools uses Synergy to record attendance, generate automated stage letters (5, 10, 15, 20 unexcused days), and place automated calls to parent numbers on file.
- School counselor Lucas Varley made multiple documented attempts to contact Reality’s mother (Marketa) by phone in Dec. 2017; when no parent participation occurred, Varley held a collaborative plan meeting with Reality on Jan. 9, 2018, signed a plan, and mailed the collaborative plan and a Lancaster County Attorney community resource letter to Marketa on Jan. 10.
- Reality continued to accrue unexcused absences after the January meeting; county attorney filed the petition in April 2018. Juvenile court adjudicated Reality habitually truant under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(b).
- Reality appealed, arguing two statutory defenses: (1) school failed to satisfy § 79-209(2)(b)/(3) (meet with parent prior to referral), and (2) county attorney failed to make reasonable referral efforts under § 43-276(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reality) | Defendant's Argument (State/School) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether school failed to satisfy § 79-209(2)(b)/(3) (meeting with parent before referral) | School must hold a collaborative plan meeting with parent present (or ensure parent participation); Varley didn’t call Marketa the day of the meeting and no post-third-call letter was shown, so statutory prerequisites were not met | Statute’s defense is limited to failure to document required efforts; school documented automated letters, phone attempts, collaborative plan meeting with student, and mailing of plan/resources to parent | Court: No defense — school adequately documented efforts under § 79-209; parent’s nonparticipation does not bar adjudication |
| Whether county attorney failed to make reasonable efforts under § 43-276(2) to refer family to community resources before filing | Community resource letter alone is insufficient or wasn’t shown to have been sent/received, so county attorney did not make reasonable referral efforts | County attorney’s community resource letter, attached to collaborative plan and mailed Jan. 10, 2018, plus coordinated school/county efforts, satisfied referral requirement | Court: No defense — record shows letter was prepared/sent and provided referral information; county attorney made reasonable efforts |
| Whether admission of community resource letter into evidence was erroneous | (Raised in brief) Letter should not have been admitted | Appellant did not assign or argue admission error properly on appeal | Court: Not considered — appellant failed to preserve challenge to admission |
| Whether juvenile court properly adjudicated habitual truancy under § 43-247(3)(b) | N/A — appellant did not contest sufficiency of truancy evidence | School records showed >20 unexcused days and ongoing attempts to address attendance; juvenile code prioritizes child’s best interests over parental nonparticipation | Court: Adjudication affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of Samantha C., 287 Neb. 644 (discusses habitual truancy and juvenile code purposes)
- In re Interest of Hla H., 25 Neb. App. 118 (truancy definition and precedent)
- In re Interest of K.S., 216 Neb. 926 (definition of truant under compulsory attendance law)
- In re Interest of LeVanta S., 295 Neb. 151 (statutory interpretation guidance for school attendance statutes)
- State v. Allen, 301 Neb. 560 (procedural rule that assignments of error must be specifically raised)
- Mays v. Midnite Dreams, 300 Neb. 485 (plain-meaning statutory interpretation)