In re Interest of Carmelo G., a child under 18 years of age. State of Nebraska, appellee,
Latika G., appellant.
Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. An
appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on the record
and reaches a conclusion independently of the juvenile
Constitutional Law: Due Process. The determination
of whether the procedures afforded an individual comport with
constitutional requirements for procedural due process
presents a question of law.
Appeal and Error. On a question of law, an appellate
court reaches a conclusion independently of the court below.
Constitutional Law: Parental Rights. The proper
starting point for legal analysis when the State involves
itself in family relations is always the fundamental
constitutional rights of a parent.
Parental Rights. The interest of parents in the
care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the
oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by the
U.S. Supreme Court.
Parental Rights: Due Process. The fundamental
liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and
management of their children is afforded due process
Juvenile Courts: Parental Rights. Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 43-248(2) (Cum. Supp. 2014) allows the State to take a
juvenile into custody without a warrant or order of the court
when it appears the juvenile is seriously endangered in his
or her surroundings and immediate removal appears to be
necessary for the juvenile's protection. However, the
parent retains a liberty interest in the continuous custody
of his or her child.
Parental Rights: Notice. The State may not, in
exercising its parens patriae interest, unreasonably delay in
notifying a parent that the State [296 Neb. 806] has taken
emergency action regarding that parent's child nor
unreasonably delay in providing the parent a meaningful
hearing. 9. Appeal and Error. An appellate
court is not obligated to engage in an analysis that is not
necessary to adjudicate the case and controversy before it.
from the Separate Juvenile Court of Douglas County: Vernon
Daniels, Judge. Order vacated, and cause remanded for further
C. Riley, Douglas County Public Defender, and Zoe R. Wade for
W. Kleine, Douglas County Attorney, and Paulette Merrell for
E. Placzek, of Law Office of Kate E. Placzek, guardian ad
Heavican, C.J., Wright, Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Kelch,
and Funke, JJ.
January 5, 2016, the State filed a petition in the separate
juvenile court of Douglas County against Carmelo G.'s
biological parents, Latika G. and Deontrae H. The State
alleged that Carmelo lacked parental care by reason of the
fault or habits of Latika and Deontrae. On that same day,
January 5, the juvenile court filed an ex parte order in
which it granted the State's motion for temporary custody
of Carmelo with the Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS). A protective custody hearing was held on January 21,
but it was continued over many dates until it was concluded
on August 2. On September 19, the juvenile court filed an
order in which it ordered that Carmelo remain in the
temporary custody of DHHS until further order of the ...