SUMMARY: Grandparents have a sufficient legal interest in dependency proceedings involving their biological or adopted grandchildren to entitle them to intervene prior to a final disposition because the relationship between grandparent and grandchild would be terminated if a dependency proceeding is...

SUMMARY: If a parent files a timely appeal to a final order, the juvenile court does not have jurisdiction to consider the termination of the parent’s parental rights while the appeal is pending. However, an order that merely extends prior orders is not a final, appealable order. Evidence that a...

SUMMARY: Where there are two parents with separate homes, the children can be removed from the home of the unfit parent at the adjudication hearing without prejudicing the other parent’s rights. Terry G., father of Amber G. and siblings, appealed order approving the case plan of the Department of...

SUMMARY: A juvenile court does not have jurisdiction to terminate parental rights during an appeal. Termination proceedings are not collateral and independent from initial proceedings in a 3a case. A second detention order entered after adjudication has been held is a final, appealable order. Gloria...

Evidence of a father’s criminal history prior to birth of the child was properly admitted. Evidence was sufficient to support termination of the father’s parental rights where the father had a long history of criminal behavior, was unable to hold a job, and did not have a sustained interest in the...

SUMMARY: A juvenile court does not have jurisdiction to order sibling visitation between a foster care child and his non-adjudicated sibling who is still under the custody of the parent. Thirteen-year-old D.W. was adjudicated under Neb. Rev. Stat. section 43-247(3)(b) on April 22, 1992. Disposition...

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...

Summary: Adjudication was proper were circumstantial evidence established that the child was in the mothers care at the time of the injuries and the injuries were consistent with abuse. Evidence that is immaterial to the facts of consequence is irrelevant and can be properly excluded. A petition was...

SUMMARY: Neb. Rev. Stat. section 43-285(2), which provides that a party must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the proposed DHHS case plan is not in the child’s best interests in order for the court to disapprove it, is not unconstitutional as applied in this case because the mother never...

SUMMARY: Adjudication and termination of parental rights was improper when petition did not allege any wrongdoing as to the daughter. The parents’ due process rights were violated when they were not advised of the potential consequence of termination of parental rights before they admitted to the...

Summary: Termination of parental rights was appropriate where the mother was not prejudiced nor deprived a substantial right due to the inability to compile a complete record and the record established she was unable to perform her parental responsibilities due to mental deficiencies which would...

SUMMARY: The physical presence of a parent at the hearing to terminate parental rights is unnecessary so long as the parent has been provided procedural due process. Parental incarceration may be considered in reference to abandonment as a basis for termination of parental rights under 43-292(1). L...

SUMMARY: Where a petition only alleges parental wrongdoing with the child’s siblings, and not any wrongdoing or neglect of the child, the juvenile court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate that child. T.B. was arrested for sexually assaulting her three daughters; a fourth child, D.M.B., was...

Summary: The State made reasonable efforts to reunify the family by providing hands on parenting, home management, and cleaning support. Evidence that the father was unwilling to support or parent his children and that he was not bonded with the children supports the termination of his parental...

SUMMARY: Fourteen days between removal and the protective custody hearing is on the brink of unreasonableness but does not violate due process. The protective custody hearing order is a final, appealable order but the ex parte order is not. On August 10, 1990, R.G., an infant, was removed from the...