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 Dana H.

Supreme Court of Nebraska

March 2, 2018

In re Interest of Dana H., a child under 18 years of age.
v.
Dana H., Appellant. State of Nebraska, Appellee.

         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. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. A jurisdictional question which does not involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of law.

         3. Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. In a juvenile case, as in any other appeal, before reaching the legal issues presented for review, it is the duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it.

         4. Final Orders: Appeal and Error. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Reissue 2016), the three types of final orders which may be reviewed on appeal are (1) an order which affects a substantial right and which determines the action and prevents a judgment, (2) an order affecting a substantial right made during a special proceeding, and (3) an order affecting a substantial right made on summary application in an action after judgment is rendered.

         5. Juvenile Courts: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. A proceeding before a juvenile court is a "special proceeding" for appellate purposes.

         6. Final Orders: Words and Phrases: Appeal and Error. A substantial right is an essential legal right, not a mere technical right. But, for purposes of appeal, it is not enough that the right itself be substantial; the effect of the order on that right must also be substantial.

         7. Minors: Proof. The exhaustion requirement of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-251.01(7)(a) (Reissue 2016) demands evidence establishing that [299 Neb. 198] no other community-based resources have a reasonable possibility for success or that all options for community-based services have been thoroughly considered and none are feasible.

         8. ___: ___. The requirement of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-251.01(7)(b) (Reissue 2016) of a significant risk of harm to a juvenile is satisfied by a showing of a reasonable likelihood that the juvenile will suffer a material or tangible detriment.

         Appeal from the Separate Juvenile Court of Lancaster County: Linda S. Porter, Judge. Affirmed.

          Joe Nigro, Lancaster County Public Defender, and Mark D. Carraher for appellant.

          Joe Kelly, Lancaster County Attorney, and Maureen E. Lamski for appellee.

          Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Kelch, and Funke, JJ.

          CASSEL, J.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Dana H. timely appeals from two interim juvenile court orders, one dictating an out-of-home placement and another continuing it. The appeal presents two issues. First, was it taken from a final order? It was, because the placement order substantially affected a substantial right for an indefinite duration. Second, did the placement orders comply with the statutory requirements of (1) exhaustion of "[a]ll available community-based resources"[1] and (2) "significant risk of harm to the juvenile or community"[2] from maintaining in-home placement? After interpreting the statute, we conclude the placement complied with both requirements. Therefore, we affirm.

         [299 Neb. 199] II. BACKGROUND

         In October 2014, the State filed a supplemental petition alleging that as a juvenile, Dana unlawfully possessed a switchblade knife in violation of a city ordinance. The separate juvenile court found the allegations to be true by proof beyond a reasonable doubt and determined that Dana was a juvenile as defined by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(1) (Supp. 2015). Dana unsuccessfully appealed his adjudication, and no disposition order was entered.[3]

         While the appeal was pending, the State filed a second supplemental petition alleging that Dana was habitually truant from school. Dana entered a plea of no contest, and the separate juvenile court found the allegations to be true by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Final disposition on the second supplemental petition was consolidated with disposition of the supplemental petition. The court continued the matter and entered interim orders.

         The court entered numerous successive interim orders, continuing prior orders and requiring further in-home services to Dana and his parents, with whom he resided. After the in-home services proved ineffective, the court ordered placement at Omaha Home for Boys as soon as placement was available. It specifically found that reasonable efforts were made and all available community resources expended to maintain Dana in his home and that it would be contrary to Dana's welfare to remain in the home due to his refusal to attend school or cooperate with the offered in-home services. The juvenile court continued this interim order and continued the dispositional hearing.

         Dana appealed, and we moved the case to our docket.[4]

         [299 Neb. 200] III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

         Dana assigns, restated, that the juvenile court erred when it ordered him to be removed from his family home when there was insufficient evidence that all community-based resources had been exhausted and that maintaining him in his ...


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.