In re Interest of Wendi L.

Caselaw Number
No. A-10-021
Filed On


SUMMARY: Holding the adjudication hearing 8 months after the petition was filed where the child is 17 years of age and the abuser already sentenced for sexual assault is hardly ideal but not grounds for reversal. Evidence establishing that the interpreter at the therapy sessions was fluent in English and Spanish establish that she was qualified to provide translation services. Adjudication was proper as there was sufficient evidence the mother sympathized with the abusing father and did not support her daughter. 
 

Wendi, DOB 4/92, was removed from the home on April 21, 2009. On September 21, 2008, Wendi revealed to her mother, Maria, that the father had sexually abused her but asked her not to call police. Wendi however reported the incident to police the next day, the father admitted touching Wendi inappropriately and eventually pled to third degree sexual assault on April 29, 2009. On May 1, 2009, the State filed a petition alleging Wendi to be within the meaning of N.R.S. 43-247(3)(a) due to Maria failing to protect Wendi. The Protective Custody Hearing was held on May 20, 2009, an amended petition filed on September 29, 2009, and adjudication held on December 7 and 21, 2009. On December 22, 2009, the court adjudicated Wendi within 43-247(3)(a). The mother appealed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the adjudication. It first addressed the mother’s allegation that an 8-month delay between the filing of the petition and the adjudication hearing by distinguishing it from In re Interest of D.M.B., 240 Neb. 349, 355-6, 481 N.W.2d 905, 911 (1992) (holding that “[a] delay of 8 months between the time a child is “temporarily” taken from the child’s parent until…an adjudication hearing cannot be condoned”), namely that a proper factual basis was established at the first hearing, that Wendi is a 17-year-old and not a young child, and the allegations were sufficient for the court to assert jurisdiction. Combining that with the fact that the language N.R.S. 43-278 requiring adjudication within 90 days is not mandatory, the Court of Appeals concluded the delay was not sufficient grounds for reversal. The Court of Appeals then held that the interpreter who translated at therapy sessions for Maria was properly qualified because she was fully fluent in English and Spanish, had spoken and written both languages her entire life and had translated for several organizations for several years.

Finally, the Court of Appeals affirmed the adjudication, finding that the mother and Wendi’s brothers continued visiting the father in jail and on the phone, visits with the father’s family who blames Wendi, and appears more concerned about the father than Wendi.