SUMMARY: Under § 43-285, the juvenile court has the authority to remove a case manager, “when after nearly a year of limited progress” the court ordered DHHS to “reassign th[e] case to an experienced case manager with demonstrated knowledge of incest cases and the needed treatment protocol to address these cases.”
Veronica was adjudicated under § 43-247(3)(a) due to allegations that she had been sexually abused by her stepfather. The petition was filed on July 26, 2002. The first dispositional and permanency planning hearing was held on June 6, 2003. At a review hearing on March 10, 2004, the juvenile court “expressed its concern for ‘a real concrete and coordinated recommendation for what kind of treatment [and] what issues are to be addressed and by whom.’” A new case manager was assigned. In November 2004, the new case manager presented the case plan. The juvenile court “expressed dissatisfaction with the reports…and referred the case to the ‘LB 1184 Treatment Team.’” In January 2006, the juvenile court “again expressed frustration with the professionals involved and with Veronica’s lack of progress.” This is when the juvenile court ordered the case worker to be replaced by a case worker with knowledge of these cases. The juvenile court “wanted to approve the name of the new case manager, who was to have an understanding of the dynamics of a case involving intrafamily sexual abuse.”
DHHS argued that the juvenile court did not have any authority to order the removal of a case manager. The Court disagreed, stating that under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-285(2), “the juvenile court may order DHHS to prepare and file with the court a proposed plan for the care and placement of a child…[and that] the court has authority to disapprove or modify the plan, order that an alternative plan be developed, or implement another plan that is in the juvenile’s best interests.” In the circumstances above, the juvenile court’s order to remove the case manager was consistent with the powers granted to them by statute. DHHS did not demonstrate “that the juvenile court [had] abused its discretion or exceeded its authority.”