In re Interest of Vladimir G., 306 Neb. 127

The State filed a juvenile petition under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) after infant Vladimir (b. 2016) was treated in March 2018 for abusive head trauma, fractures, a large abrasion, and multiple bruises.
In February 2018 Abigail (mother) sought a medical exam alleging possible sexual abuse by her boyfriend, Thomas Boyd; medical staff found no forensic signs then but Abigail expressed concern.
Despite those concerns, Abigail left Vladimir in Boyd’s care in March 2018 when the more serious injuries occurred; medical witnesses later opined the March injuries were consistent with abuse and occurred while Vladimir was with Boyd.
At the adjudication hearing Abigail invoked the Fifth Amendment; the court required her to testify, she denied causing the injuries and said Boyd was caring for the child, and depositions of treating clinicians were admitted without objection.
The county court adjudicated Vladimir as a child within § 43-247(3)(a); Abigail appealed arguing (1) violation of her Fifth Amendment and statutory right to remain silent and (2) insufficient evidence to support adjudication.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a parent may invoke the Fifth Amendment in juvenile adjudication and whether the court erred by compelling Abigail to testify.	Abigail: court forced testimony over her valid Fifth invocation and immunity assurances were untimely/insufficient.	State: Abigail’s testimony was not incriminating (indeed exculpatory); county attorney would not prosecute and offered immunity.	Parent may claim Fifth in adjudication; even if the court erred in requiring testimony, error was not reversible—no unfair prejudice and any Fifth problem would be resolved if testimony were used in a later criminal prosecution.
Whether evidence was sufficient to adjudicate Vladimir under § 43-247(3)(a).	Abigail: Evidence insufficient; court imposed de facto strict liability for harms occurring while child was in another’s care; lack of notice re: later relationship evidence.	State: medical depositions and deputy’s statements support findings that child suffered abusive injuries while with Boyd and Abigail left him in Boyd’s care despite earlier concerns.	Sufficient evidence (by preponderance) supported adjudication even excluding Abigail’s arguably incriminating testimony; judgment affirmed.

State v. Phillips, 286 Neb. 974 (2013) (Fifth Amendment privilege analysis; courts afford liberal construction)
Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951) (privilege extends to lines of questioning that may incriminate)
Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (1973) (witness may refuse to answer unless protected from use and derivative use in criminal case)
Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003) (Fifth Amendment violation occurs only if compelled testimony is used in criminal prosecution; prophylactic rules discussed)
Allen v. Illinois, 478 U.S. 364 (1986) (Fifth Amendment privilege in noncriminal proceedings)
Behrens v. Blunk, 280 Neb. 984 (2010) (privilege applies at various stages including discovery)
In re Interest of Clifford M., 6 Neb. App. 754 (1998) (parental invocation of Fifth in termination context recognized)
In re Interest of Giavonni P., 304 Neb. 580 (2019) (standard of de novo appellate review in juvenile cases)
In re Interest of Jordan B., 300 Neb. 355 (2018) (appellate deference where lower court observed witnesses)
In re Interest of Jeremy U. et al., 304 Neb. 734 (2020) (petition must give parent notice of bases for adjudication; burden = preponderance)
Weyh v. Gottsch, 303 Neb. 280 (2019) (in civil cases, admission/exclusion of evidence reversible only if it unfairly prejudiced a substantial right)
State v. Robinson, 271 Neb. 698 (2006) (trial court’s discretion required to assess claimed Fifth privilege)