L.G.P., аppellant, is the mother of R.G., born November 12, 1989. On August 10,1990, appellаnt took R.G. and her sister to a day-care home, leaving two оther small children at home alone. Authorities, alerted to thе possibility that R.G. was endangered in her current surroundings through reports оf bruising under her eyes on at least two occasions, took аll four of appellant’s children into custody.
Appellant returned home approximately 3 hours later to find a handwritten nоte signed by a police officer tagged to the door. Thе note stated that the children had been taken into protеctive custody and listed a phone number to call for further infоrmation.
On August 13, appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district court for Douglas County. A hearing was set for 3 dаys later. The district court determined at the hearing only that due process had been accorded appellant in the removal of her children, and ordered the county attorney to file a petition regarding R.G. in the separate juvenile court. The *646 district court made no determination as to the evidence regarding abuse or neglect, nor did it inquire into the best interеsts of the child. L.G.P. appeals that decision.
Appellant аssigns that the district court erred in (1) denying her petition for writ of habeas corpus; (2) failing to find the ex parte order of the separate juvenile court invalid; (3) failing to find that she was denied due prоcess; (4) failing to find Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-253,43-255,43-256, and43-275 (Reissue 1988) unconstitutional insofar as these sections apply to dependent children; (5) failing tо find that reasonable efforts were not made to keep the child in the home, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-254 (Reissue 1988); (6) failing to find that the child was not placed in the least restrictive environment, аs required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-250 (Reissue 1988); (7) failing to find that the minor child was not in imminent dаnger and that the child’s removal, without a warrant, was unlawful and violated appellant’s right to due process of law; and (8) failing tо find that the child was unlawfully detained pursuant to a county attornеy’s “hold.”
This is the second appearance of this case in this court, and with the exception of those issues surrounding the denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, we have рreviously considered and decided all other assignments of еrror in
In re Interest of
R.G.,
As to the appropriateness of the district court’s dеnial of appellant’s petition for writ of habeas cоrpus, we affirm. As we held in In re Interest of R.G., supra, appellant was afforded due process in the juvenile court.
A decision in a habeas corpus case involving the custody of a child is reviewed by this court de novo on the record.
Yopp
v.
Batt,
The remaining question present in every habeas corpus case is the best interests of the child.
Reynolds v. Green,
Proceedings in habeas corpus to obtain the custody of a child arе governed by considerations of expediency and equity аnd should not be bound by technical rules.
McCormick v. State,
*647 Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-245(3) (Cum. Supp. 1990), nothing in the Nebraska Juvenile Code shall be construed to deprive the district courts of, inter alia, their habeas corpus jurisdiction. The district court’s denial of the petition was proper, еven absent production of findings regarding the best interests of the child, as the court may, and appropriately did, defer to the judgment of the juvenile court on that issue.
The assignments of error are without merit, and we therefore affirm.
Affirmed.