SUMMARY: Adjudication of the child pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. section 43-247(3)(a) is contingent only upon the situation in which the child finds him or herself; the fault of the parent is not the issue. Prior to ordering a rehabilitation plan, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing to determine reasonable provisions material to the parental plan’s rehabilitative objective of correcting the condition that led to out-of-home placement.
Constance G., an infant, was removed from the mother’s home where she was living with her parents on the basis that the mother was hearing voices to harm the child and that the grandparents could not protect the child because they both worked. The father lived in Lincoln and had resided with the mother for a short time after the child’s birth. The child was adjudicated under Neb. Rev. Stat. section 43-247(3)(a) after no contest by the father. A dispositional hearing was held after which the court ordered the child to remain in foster care and ordered the parents to comply with a rehabilitative plan created by DHHS, which included mental health therapy for the mother and anger management for the father. The father appealed. The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed the juvenile court’s order, finding that the juvenile court did not have jurisdiction because insufficient evidence was presented at adjudication as to the father. The guardian ad litem petitioned for further review.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals judgment. As to the issue of obtaining jurisdiction through adjudication, the Supreme Court reviewed case law from other states and held that adjudication is not “concerned with anyone’s faults or habits; we are concerned only with the condition in which the infant found herself.” 247 Neb. at 634. It distinguished In re Interest of D.M.B., 240 Neb. 349 (1992) by noting that the issue in D.M.B. was that no allegations were made as to the danger of the child’s current situation, only past allegations as to siblings. In this case, because the county court acquired jurisdiction over the infant, it therefore had jurisdiction to enter orders in the child’s best interests. As to the issue of disposition, the Supreme Court noted that the juvenile court has the power under Neb. Rev. Stat. section 43-285 to prescribe a reasonable plan for parental rehabilitation limited by a preference in favor of a plan submitted by DHHS and that the court must hold a hearing to determine whether the plan is in the child’s best interest. The Supreme Court found in this case that the juvenile court properly held an evidentiary hearing and that the ordered rehabilitative plan was reasonable under the circumstances.