In re Interest of Reality W.
925 N.W.2d 355
Neb.2019Background
- Reality W., age 15, was alleged habitually truant between Sept. 1, 2017 and Mar. 7, 2018; school Synergy records showed 274 class-period unexcused absences (68.5 days).
- Lincoln Public Schools’ attendance procedures: Synergy attendance codes, automated stage letters at 5/10/15/20 unexcused days, automated calls, and counselor (Varley) contact attempts with parents and collaborative-plan meetings.
- Varley testified to multiple call attempts to Reality’s mother (Marketa), a January 9, 2018 collaborative plan meeting held with Reality (mother absent), mailing of the collaborative plan and a Lancaster County Attorney community resource letter on Jan. 10, 2018, and continued truancy thereafter.
- Juvenile court adjudicated Reality habitually truant under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(b), finding the school documented required efforts under § 79-209 and the county attorney made reasonable referral efforts under § 43-276(2).
- Reality appealed, asserting defenses under § 79-209 (school failed to hold meeting with parent) and § 43-276(2) (county attorney failed to make reasonable referral efforts).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reality) | Defendant's Argument (State/School/County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether school complied with § 79-209(2)/(3) (meetings/documentation) | School failed to hold a collaborative meeting that included parent or call parent the day of the meeting; thus statutory duty unmet | School documented multiple notices, automated letters/calls, phone attempts, held meeting when parent unresponsive, mailed plan and resources; documentation satisfied § 79-209(3) | Court: No defense — documentation requirement met; parent absence does not negate compliance |
| Whether county attorney satisfied § 43-276(2) (reasonable referral efforts before filing) | County’s community resource letter alone insufficient; Reality and mother did not receive letter | County letter (dated/mistyped year notwithstanding) was prepared by county attorney, mailed Jan. 10, 2018; letter supplied resources and contact info; logs confirm mailing | Court: No defense — county made reasonable referral efforts; letter and mailing evidence suffice |
| Whether failure to document under § 79-209 is a defense to adjudication | Parent’s nonattendance should prevent referral/adjudication | Statute makes only school’s failure to document a defense; documented efforts defeat the defense | Court: Statutory plain language controls; documentation, not parental attendance, governs |
| Whether record supports juvenile adjudication as habitually truant | (not directly challenged) | Synergy records show >20 days unexcused; prior precedent treats unexcused absences as truancy | Court: Adjudication proper under § 43-247(3)(b) given documented unexcused absences |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of Samantha C., 287 Neb. 644, 843 N.W.2d 665 (2014) (unexcused absences sufficient to establish habitual truancy)
- In re Interest of Hla H., 25 Neb. App. 118, 903 N.W.2d 664 (2017) (discussion of truancy concept under compulsory attendance law)
- In re Interest of K.S., 216 Neb. 926, 346 N.W.2d 417 (1984) (definition of "truant")
- In re Interest of LeVanta S., 295 Neb. 151, 887 N.W.2d 502 (2016) (attendance-notice practices and documentation relevance)
- State v. Allen, 301 Neb. 560, 919 N.W.2d 500 (2018) (appellate-preservation rule for assignments of error)
- Mays v. Midnite Dreams, 300 Neb. 485, 915 N.W.2d 71 (2018) (statutory interpretation: plain meaning governs)