In re Interest of Antonio J. et al., CHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE. State of Nebraska, appellant,
Arturo H. AND NOEMI M., APPELLEES.
from the Separate Juvenile Court of Douglas County: Elizabeth
Crnkovich, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
W. Kleine, Douglas County Attorney, and Anthony Hernandez for
Mariette C. Achigbu for appellee Arturo H. Lynnette Z. Boyle,
of Tietjen, Simon & Boyle, guardian ad litem.
Heavican, C.J., Wright, Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Kelch,
and Funke, JJ.
beginning of a juvenile adjudication hearing, the State moved
to dismiss without prejudice two factual allegations of the
petition. Instead, the juvenile court ordered those
allegations dismissed with prejudice. Because the State was
entitled to dismiss the allegations as a matter of right, the
allegations should have been dismissed without prejudice. We
modify the order accordingly.
August 25, 2015, the State filed an amended petition seeking
to adjudicate five children under Neb. Rev. Stat. §
43-247(3)(a) (Cum. Supp. 2014). Count I contained five
allegations concerning the fault or habits of the mother,
while the four allegations under count II regarded the fault
or habits of the father.
months after the filing of the amended petition, the juvenile
court held an adjudication hearing. At the beginning of the
hearing, the State moved to dismiss without prejudice two
paragraphs, which alleged that the father had subjected a
juvenile to inappropriate sexual contact and that the mother
knew or should have known of such contact. The following
THE COURT: No. I'm not going to do that without
prejudice. Why are you dismissing it?
[The State]: Because the State is not going - doesn't
have evidence to prove those allegations, Your Honor. THE
COURT: Why did you file it then? [The State]: Because the
evidence I had at that time didn't pan out, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, I'm not dismissing it without prejudice.
[The State]: So just for the State's clarification, this
Court is going to dismiss it with ...