IN RE INTEREST OF AALIYAH M. ET AL., CHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE.
RONALD M., APPELLANT. STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE,
1. Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on the record and reaches its conclusions independently of the juvenile court's findings.
2. Parental Rights. Parents have a recognized liberty interest in raising their children.
3. Parent and Child: Due Process. The parent-child relationship is afforded due process protection.
4. Constitutional Law: Due Process: Appeal and Error. The appellate courts apply a three-part test for due process protecting liberty interests: (1) Is there a protected liberty interest at stake? (2) If so, what procedural protections are required? (3) Given the facts of the case, was there a denial of the process that was due?
5. Words and Phrases. The word "or, " when used properly, is disjunctive.
6. Constitutional Law: Due Process: Parental Rights. In a hearing on the termination of parental rights without a prior adjudication hearing, where such termination is sought under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292(1) through (5) (Cum. Supp. 2012), such proceedings must be accompanied by due process safeguards.
[21 Neb.App. 64] Appeal from the Separate Juvenile Court of Lancaster County: Roger J. Heideman, Judge.
Joseph E. Dalton, of Dalton Law Office, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.
Daniel Zieg, Deputy Lancaster County Attorney, for appellee.
Inbody, Chief Judge, and Irwin and Moore, Judges.
Ronald M. appeals from the order of the separate juvenile court of Lancaster County, which terminated his parental rights to his minor children. On appeal, Ronald assigns error to the court's failure to advise him of his rights pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-279.01 (Reissue 2008) prior to the hearing on the State's motion for termination of his parental rights. Because Ronald received the rights advisement at the time of the initial appearance hearing, his due process rights were not violated, and we affirm.
On October 1, 2009, the juvenile court held an initial appearance hearing on the State's petition alleging that the minor children were juveniles as described in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) (Reissue 2008). The children's mother appeared with her counsel, and Ronald appeared with his counsel. Before Ronald and the children's mother entered their pleas, the court advised them of their rights and ...