Summary: Heather G. appeals the adjudication order of the Separate Juvenile Court of Douglas County as to her two children. She assigns error to the Court finding sufficient evidence that the children were at risk for harm and that it was in their best interests to remain in the temporary custody of DHHS and placed out of the home. The Court here finds that there was insufficient evidence to support the adjudication and so reverses with direction to dismiss the petition.
In December 2016, the State filed a petition alleging that Arabella and Phoenix were within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a). The case came to the attention of DHHS because no one picked up Phoenix from school except for a 10 year old cousin, which made the school concerned that there was improper supervision in the home. The caseworker went to the home during her investigation and found an adult in the home, but the caseworker felt she was under the influence of drugs. She was unable to reach the mother for 3 to 4 hours while she waited in the home. On that day, the caseworker prepared an affidavit for removal of the children. This affidavit was not made a part of the record.
Adjudication was held in June 2017. At adjudication the Court found Arabella and Phoenix as children within the meaning of the statute by a preponderance of the evidence and that it would be in their best interests to remain in the custody of DHHS.
An appellate court reviews cases de novo. In re Interest of LeVanta S., 295 Neb. 151 (2016).
To obtain jurisdiction of children at adjudication, the Court must find that the State has established that without intervention there is a definite risk of future harm. In re Interest of Justine J. et al., 286 Neb. 250 (2013). The State relied heavily on the affidavit for removal, which was not offered or received into evidence and so the Court of Appeals could not review it.
Here, there was not enough evidence offered by the State that the children were at risk of future harm because of the behavior of their mother. The Court does not get to the second assignment of error.
The case is reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss the petitio