Caselaw Updates
Filed on:
SUMMARY: Although the juvenile court had the power to vacate its court order making findings required for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS), its doing so was in error because there was sufficient evidence to make the required findings. Jose G. and Luis G. were brought from Guatemala to the...
Filed on:
SUMMARY: Termination of the father’s parental rights was proper given the length of time in foster care and the absence of the father from the majority of the child’s life. The child, Andrea J. (DOB 8/13/95), was removed from the mother’s home in August 2003. Andre is the father of Andrea. She has...
Filed on:
SUMMARY: Although the mother’s non-compliance warranted her dismissal from the Family Drug Court program, it was error for the court not to grant the State’s oral motion for placement review based on allegations on renewal of drug use and risk to the children. The children, Sire E. (DOB 4/10/92)...
Filed on:
SUMMARY: Termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interests because the mother is incapable of providing a stable and permanent home now and in the near future. The children, Keijuan, DOB 4/24/98, and Keijon, DOB 10/30/00, were placed in the state’s custody on September 27, 2006...
Filed on:
SUMMARY: The statutory requirement of newborn blood-testing does not violate the free exercise of religion provisions under the Nebraska Constitution; however, the juvenile court did not have jurisdiction because evidence of the lack of blood testing alone is not sufficient to find the child within...
Filed on:
SUMMARY: The motions to transfer to tribal court were properly denied for good cause because the child were not Indian Children under ICWA at the time of the hearing and because the tribal social service agencies did not have appropriate and necessary services available for the children if transfer...
Filed on:
SUMMARY: Termination of the father’s parental rights was proper when, after receiving adequate services for two years, the father still did not have the necessary skills, and lacked the intellectual capacity, to parent the child. Elvis, DOB 5/3/06, is the child of Terry and Angela. After birth...
Filed on:
SUMMARY: Once a parent’s rights are terminated, the grandparent no longer has a legal interest in the court proceedings. The children, Crystal, Joshua and Jacob, were adjudicated under 43-247(3)(a) in June 2003. On August 18, 2005, the maternal grandmother, Carol, intervened in the proceedings. On...
Filed on:
SUMMARY: Evidence showing that the father spanked or hit his child on the buttocks, thighs and legs to the extent that deep redness was visible two days after the incident and that the father has been warned by DHHS repeatedly for inappropriate discipline was sufficient for adjudication under 43-237...
Filed on:
SUMMARY: The statutory ground for termination where the child must be out of the home 15 of the most recent 22 months requires “clear and convincing evidence of circumstances as compelling and pertinent to a child’s best interests as to those enumerated in the other subsections”, given that this...
Filed on:
SUMMARY: The termination of a guardianship was properly denied because there was clear and convincing evidence of continuing parental unfitness, including an unstable marital relationship, frequent changes in residences and schools, and ongoing fear of the mother of the father. Andrew (DOB 1/2002)...
Filed on:
SUMMARY: The filing of an original petition in juvenile confers jurisdiction on the juvenile court; therefore, any jurisdictional defect in transferring the case from the district court is moot. Termination of the father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest because the child’s special...
Filed on:
SUMMARY: The court violated the parents’ rights when it failed to adopt DHHS’ plan of reunification because there was no evidence to show that the plan of reunification was not in the children’s best interest. Failure to adopt the plan and denial of the parents’ visitation with the children results...
Filed on:
SUMMARY: Once the court establishes a guardianship, the responsibility and authority of DHHS no longer exists other than that related to subsidized guardianships. However, the court has continuing jurisdiction over the case even after appointment of guardianship. On December 20, 2007, the court...
Filed on:
SUMMARY: The mother did not challenge DHHS parameters on visitation or timely appeal the court’s order permitting DHHS’ restrictions, and her argument therefore has no merit on appeal. Termination of parental rights was proper as to all children as the mother did not truly begin working on her...