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

Background

In April 2019 the State filed a truancy petition under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(b) alleging Victor L. missed more than 20 school days in 2018–19; counsel was appointed.
Victor moved to dismiss preadjudication, claiming he was incompetent to participate; the court ordered a new competency evaluation.
Dr. Kari Perez’s evaluation found a full-scale IQ of 68, severe deficits in verbal and abstract reasoning, poor practical judgment, and concluded Victor lacked the capacities associated with adjudicative competence; remediation was unlikely to fully restore decisionmaking capacity.
The State did not contest the competency findings but argued competency is unnecessary for status-offense adjudications and suggested alternatives (appoint a guardian ad litem or order competency restoration) without offering supporting evidence.
The juvenile court dismissed the truancy petition, sealed records, and the State appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Victor's Argument	Held
Must a juvenile be competent to be adjudicated for a status offense?	Competency is not required for adjudicating status offenses.	Juveniles must be competent to participate in any adjudication; adjudicating an incompetent juvenile violates due process and statutory rights.	§ 43-258 plainly grants a statutory right to competency for preadjudication evaluations; competency is required for adjudication of status offenses.
Is dismissal mandatory when a juvenile is found incompetent, or are other remedies required?	Dismissal is not mandatory; courts can use alternatives (GAL, restoration) instead of dismissal.	Dismissal can be appropriate to protect the juvenile’s rights and best interests.	Legislature set no mandatory enforcement procedure; juvenile courts have discretion to choose the remedy based on the juvenile’s best interests.
Should the court have ordered competency restoration or appointed a guardian ad litem before dismissing?	Court should have considered restoration or appointed a GAL and proceeded.	State failed to request or present evidence supporting either remedy; Perez’s report indicated limited remediation potential.	No abuse of discretion in declining to order restoration or appoint a GAL on this record given lack of evidence and lack of specific request.
Was the dismissal a final, appealable order by the county attorney?	(Implicit) Dismissal might not be final/appealable.	Dismissal foreclosed the State’s parens patriae ability to pursue adjudication on the alleged truancy ground.	Dismissing the petition in its entirety affected a substantial right of the State and was a final, appealable order.

Key Cases Cited

In re Interest of Brandy M. et al., 250 Neb. 510, 550 N.W.2d 17 (1996) (juvenile statutory rights without specific remedies yield directory enforcement; juvenile court discretion to dismiss when in juvenile’s best interests)
In re Interest of Noah B. et al., 295 Neb. 764, 891 N.W.2d 109 (2017) (State’s parens patriae interest and substantial-right analysis when juvenile proceedings are dismissed)
Walker v. BNSF Railway Co., 306 Neb. 559, 946 N.W.2d 656 (2020) (definition and standard for abuse of discretion)
State v. Jones, 258 Neb. 695, 605 N.W.2d 434 (2000) (criminal-code competency-restoration procedure and decision tree referenced for comparison)