In re Interest of Zachary D. & Alexander D.
289 Neb. 763
| Neb. | 2015Background
- Alexander D., adjudicated juvenile and in custody after parental rights terminated; chronic behavioral and developmental disorders and numerous prior placements, making stable placement difficult.
- Alexander was placed at Envisions under an order that he "shall remain as placed in the Envisions Program, until further Order of the Court."
- NFC (contracted case manager) and DHHS engaged in licensing/payment negotiations with Envisions; Envisions terminated services effective November 1 after payment/licensing issues.
- NFC/department staff delayed informing the guardian ad litem, county attorney, and court about the negotiations and impending termination; Alexander was moved November 1 and emergency approval was entered November 4.
- Guardian ad litem filed contempt; juvenile court found DHHS and NFC in civil contempt, imposed $5,000 fine or purge by adopting and distributing two written policies (notification to stakeholders on threatened placement changes; retention of case-related records).
- DHHS appealed, arguing insufficient proof of willful contempt and that the policy-directed purge violated separation of powers; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Guardian ad litem) | Defendant's Argument (DHHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHHS/NFC were in civil contempt for moving Alexander without court order/notice | DHHS/NFC violated the court order and § 43-285(3) by moving Alexander without notice; conduct was intentional or willful | Conduct was not willful; mistakes/oversight, not intentional disobedience; insufficient clear-and-convincing proof | Affirmed: contempt finding supported — violation of placement order and statutory notice; factual findings not clearly erroneous and no abuse of discretion |
| Standard and sufficiency of proof (willfulness; clear and convincing standard) | Clear-and-convincing evidence showed intentional conduct and failure to notify stakeholders | Argued no specific finding of willfulness; appellate standard requires proof of intentional violation | Court: willfulness may be inferred from oral findings; complainant must prove contempt by clear and convincing evidence — requirement met here |
| Whether judicially-ordered purge requiring DHHS/NFC to create/distribute policies violated separation of powers | Purge remedied the contempt and protected juvenile interests; policies are narrow and internal | Order improperly compelled executive to promulgate rules/regulations; judicial intrusion into executive administration | Affirmed: ordered policies are internal-management, remedial, not rulemaking; sanction was within court's discretion and did not violate separation of powers |
| Applicability of collateral bar rule to DHHS's constitutional challenge | N/A (respondent argued DHHS preserved challenge) | Collateral bar rule bars raising unconstitutionality as defense to contempt | Court: collateral bar rule inapplicable because DHHS preserved constitutional claim by appeal; court considered separation-of-powers argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Spady v. Spady, 284 Neb. 885, 824 N.W.2d 366 (Neb. 2012) (standard of review for civil contempt proceedings)
- In re Interest of Samantha L. & Jasmine L., 284 Neb. 856, 824 N.W.2d 691 (Neb. 2012) (inherent contempt power of courts and use sparingly)
- Hossaini v. Vaelizadeh, 283 Neb. 369, 808 N.W.2d 867 (Neb. 2012) (civil contempt requires willful disobedience; burden of proof)
- R & B Farms v. Cedar Valley Acres, 281 Neb. 706, 798 N.W.2d 121 (Neb. 2011) (clear-and-convincing evidence defined)
- Smeal Fire Apparatus Co. v. Kreikemeier, 279 Neb. 661, 782 N.W.2d 848 (Neb. 2010) (limitations on contempt power and related principles)
- Klinginsmith v. Wichmann, 252 Neb. 889, 567 N.W.2d 172 (Neb. 1997) (willfulness and contempt standards)