In re Interest of Robert W., a child under 18 years of age.
Robert W., appellant. State of Nebraska, appellee.
Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. An
appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on the record
and reaches a conclusion independently of the juvenile
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.
Jurisdiction. An actual case or controversy
is necessary for the exercise of judicial power.
Moot Question: Words and Phrases. A case
becomes moot when the issues initially presented in the
litigation cease to exist, when the litigants lack a legally
cognizable interest in the outcome of litigation, or when the
litigants seek to determine a question which does not rest
upon existing facts or rights, in which the issues presented
are no longer alive.
Courts: Judgments. In the absence of an
actual case or controversy requiring judicial resolution, it
is not the function of the courts to render a judgment that
is merely advisory.
Moot Question. As a general rule, a moot
case is subject to summary dismissal.
Moot Question: Appeal and Error. Under
certain circumstances, an appellate court may entertain the
issues presented by a moot case when the claims presented
involve a matter of great public interest or when other
rights or liabilities may be affected by the case's
Moot Question: Words and
Phrases. In determining whether the public interest
exception should be invoked, the court considers the public
or private nature of the question presented, the desirability
of an [27 Neb.App. 12] authoritative adjudication for future
guidance of public officials, and the likelihood of future
recurrence of the same or a similar problem.
Minors: Proof. The exhaustion requirement of
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-251.01(7)(a) (Reissue 2016) demands
evidence establishing that 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.
from the Separate Juvenile Court of Lancaster County: Toni G.
Thorson, Judge. Affirmed.
Nigro, Lancaster County Public Defender, and James G. Sieben
Patrick F. Condon, Lancaster County Attorney, and Julie Mruz
Pirtle, Bishop, and Arterburn, Judges.
W. appeals from two orders of the separate juvenile court of
Lancaster County finding that all community-based resources
to assist him and his family in keeping Robert in the family
home had been exhausted and ordering him placed outside of
the home. Based on the reasons that follow, we affirm.
November 6, 2017, a petition to adjudicate Robert was filed,
alleging that he had committed two felony offenses:
terroristic threats and use of a deadly weapon to commit a
felony. The charges stemmed from an incident in which Robert
pointed a handgun at the back of another juvenile's head.
An order for immediate custody was attached to the petition.
A supplemental petition was filed on November 9, alleging
three additional misdemeanor charges. On November 17, Robert
entered a no contest plea to the use of the deadly weapon to
commit a felony offense and he was adjudicated under Neb. [27
Neb.App. 13] Rev. Stat. § 43-247(2) (Reissue 2016). The
remaining charges were dismissed.
his adjudication, the court ordered him to be "detained
at the Lancaster County Juvenile Detention Center [and to]
cooperate with a co-occurring evaluation" with
psychological testing. Dr. Leland Zlomke, a licensed
psychologist, conducted an ...