In re Interest of Victor L., 309 Neb. 21

The State filed a truancy petition under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(b) alleging Victor, then a middle‑school student, missed more than 20 school days during the 2018–19 year.
Victor moved to dismiss the petition, claiming he was not competent to participate in adjudication; the court ordered a competency evaluation.
Dr. Kari Perez’s juvenile adjudicative competency evaluation found Victor had a full‑scale IQ of 68, markedly impaired reasoning and practical judgment, and concluded he lacked capacities associated with competency to stand trial.
The State did not dispute the evaluation’s methodology or the incompetency finding but argued competency is not required for status‑offense adjudication and suggested alternatives (appoint a guardian ad litem or order competency restoration) without presenting supporting evidence.
The juvenile court dismissed the truancy petition preadjudication on the basis of Victor’s incompetency, sealed the records, and the State appealed. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal.

Issue	State's Argument	Victor's Argument	Held
Is the dismissal a final, appealable order?	Dismissal not final; no appealable order.	Dismissal forecloses prosecution; appealable.	Dismissal was final and appealable because it terminated the proceeding and affected the State’s substantial right.
Must juveniles be competent to be adjudicated for status offenses?	Competency not required for status‑offense adjudications.	Juveniles have a right to be competent to participate in any adjudication.	§ 43‑258 grants juveniles a statutory right to competency for any case under the Juvenile Code, including status offenses.
Are alternatives (appoint GAL or order competency restoration per criminal statutes) mandatory before dismissal?	Juvenile court should appoint GAL or order restoration; follow criminal competency procedures.	Dismissal proper where competency cannot be assured and alternatives unsupported.	Legislature left enforcement procedure to juvenile court discretion; criminal restoration regime is not automatically imported; alternatives are not mandatory.
Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition?	Dismissal was premature; court should have tried alternatives.	Court properly dismissed given evaluation and absence of feasible restoration or other evidence.	No abuse of discretion: record contained only the evaluation concluding likely enduring deficits and State offered no evidence supporting restoration or GAL appointment to protect adjudicative rights.

In re Interest of Brandy M. et al., 250 Neb. 510 (1996) (juvenile statutory rights may be enforced by discretionary remedies; dismissal may be appropriate when in juvenile's best interests)
In re Interest of Noah B. et al., 295 Neb. 764 (2017) (discussing standards of appellate review in juvenile cases)
State v. Jones, 258 Neb. 695 (2000) (outlines criminal‑code procedures for competency restoration and review)
In re Interest of Karlie D., 283 Neb. 581 (2012) (defines when an order affects a substantial right for appealability in juvenile matters)
Walker v. BNSF Railway Co., 306 Neb. 559 (2020) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard explained)