Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Michael N.

Court of Appeals of Nebraska

January 23, 2018

In re Interest of Michael N., a child under 18 years of age.
v.
Heather N., Appellant, State of Nebraska, Appellee and Cross-Appellee. and Robert N., APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT.

         1. Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on the record and reaches a conclusion independently of the juvenile court's findings.

         2. 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.

         3. Appeal and Error. On a question of law, an appellate court reaches a conclusion independently of the court below.

         4. Juvenile Courts: Parental Rights: Notice. In a juvenile court case, following the issuance of an ex parte order for temporary immediate custody, a prompt detention hearing is required in order to protect a parent against the risk of an erroneous deprivation of his or her parental interests. Because parents have the right to a prompt detention hearing, they must also have a right to receive notice of that detention hearing.

         5. Judicial Notice: Records. When a fact is judicially noticed by a trial court, papers requested to be judicially noticed must be marked, identified, and made a part of the record. In addition, testimony must be transcribed, properly certified, marked, and made a part of the record.

         6. Juvenile Courts: Parental Rights: Notice. In a juvenile court case, if a detention hearing is held promptly, but without the parent's presence and without any evidence of actual or constructive notice of the hearing to the parent, then the parent's right to such a hearing is meaningless.

         [25 Neb.App. 477] Appeal from the Separate Juvenile Court of Douglas County: Elizabeth Crnkovich, Judge. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

          Karen S. Nelson and Alexis S. Mullaney, of Carlson & Burnett, L.L.P., for appellant.

          Donald W. Kleine, Douglas County Attorney, and Jennifer C. Clark for appellee State of Nebraska.

          Kristina B. Murphree, of Marks, Clare & Richards, L.L.C., for appellee Robert N.

          Pirtle, Riedmann, and Arterburn, Judges.

          ARTERBURN, JUDGE.

         INTRODUCTION

         Heather N. appeals and Robert N. cross-appeals from an order of the juvenile court, which order granted the Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) continued custody of their son, Michael N., and provided that placement of Michael was to be outside of Heather and Robert's home. Both Heather and Robert challenge, among other things, the juvenile court's decision to enter its order granting the Department continued custody of Michael when they were not provided notice of the detention hearing. Upon our de novo review, we conclude that Heather and Robert had a right to notice of the detention hearing. Because there was no evidence that they were provided such notice or, at least, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.