In re Interest of Becka P , 298 Neb. 98 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
    www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
    11/03/2017 12:11 AM CDT
    - 98 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    298 Nebraska R eports
    IN RE INTEREST OF BECKA P. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    298 Neb. 98
    In   re I nterest ofBecka P. et al., children under
    18 years of age.
    State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Robert P.
    and Veronica M., appellants.
    ___ N.W.2d ___
    Filed October 27, 2017.   Nos. S-16-1131 through S-16-1133.
    1.	 Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews juve-
    nile cases de novo on the record and reaches a conclusion independently
    of the juvenile court’s findings.
    2.	 Appeal and Error. On a question of law, an appellate court reaches a
    conclusion independently of the court below.
    Appeals from the County Court for Garden County: R andin
    Roland, Judge. Affirmed.
    Robert S. Harvoy for appellant Robert P.
    On brief, Michael R. Snyder, of Snyder & Hilliard, P.C.,
    L.L.O., for appellants.
    Philip E. Pierce, Garden County Attorney, for appellee.
    Heavican, C.J., Wright, Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy,
    K elch, and Funke, JJ.
    Heavican, C.J.
    INTRODUCTION
    After a dispositional hearing, the county court for Garden
    County, Nebraska, sitting as a juvenile court, declined to
    adopt a case plan and a court report recommended by the
    Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Among
    - 99 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    298 Nebraska R eports
    IN RE INTEREST OF BECKA P. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    298 Neb. 98
    other instructions, the court ordered DHHS to update the chil-
    dren’s immunizations. The children’s parents, Robert P. and
    Veronica M., appeal. We affirm.
    FACTUAL BACKGROUND
    Robert and Veronica are the parents of Becka P., Thomas
    P., and Robert P., Jr. Prior to 2015, multiple claims were
    made against Robert and Veronica, alleging physical neglect
    of the children. The court concluded that these allegations
    were unfounded. In one instance, Becka was removed from
    the home for a time, but was returned and noncourt services
    were provided. In another instance, services were offered
    but rejected.
    In December 2015, the State filed juvenile petitions and
    affidavits in support of those petitions, alleging that Robert
    and Veronica had collectively been cited four times since
    2013 for failure to use a child safety restraint. Evidence was
    presented that one of Robert and Veronica’s children had been
    involved in several automobile accidents while riding unre-
    strained in the front seat while Robert was driving. One of
    the accidents involved a fire, and another accident involved
    a rollover, where it was determined that the child was sit-
    ting unrestrained on Robert’s lap while he was driving. The
    children were adjudicated; that adjudication was affirmed in
    an unpublished memorandum opinion by the Nebraska Court
    of Appeals on October 16, 2016, in cases Nos. A-16-351
    through A-16-353.
    While the adjudication was on appeal, the juvenile court
    appointed an educational surrogate for the children. Robert
    and Veronica appealed. This court found that Robert and
    Veronica were appealing from final orders and affirmed the
    county court’s appointment, concluding that (1) the appeals
    of the adjudication did not divest the juvenile court of juris-
    diction to issue or rule on the various orders to show cause
    and (2) the orders appointing the educational surrogate were
    not premised on a finding of contempt; thus, Robert and
    Veronica’s assertion that they should have been given the
    - 100 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    298 Nebraska R eports
    IN RE INTEREST OF BECKA P. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    298 Neb. 98
    ability to purge their contempt was misplaced. Robert and
    Veronica did not challenge the merits of the educational sur-
    rogate appointment.1
    While the appeals from the surrogate appointment were
    pending, proceedings in the juvenile court continued. A dispo-
    sitional hearing was held on November 10, 2016, on the DHHS
    court report. In that report, DHHS recommended the continu-
    ing permanency goal of family preservation, with custody of
    the children to be returned to the parents and the surrogate
    left in place to address educational concerns. The children’s
    guardian ad litem testified that he did not agree with the DHHS
    recommendation that custody of the children be returned to
    Robert and Veronica.
    Following that hearing, the juvenile court declined to adopt
    the DHHS recommendation. Instead, on November 10, 2016,
    the juvenile court ordered that “[c]are, custody, and control . . .
    remain with [DHHS]” for each child, and additionally ordered
    various other directives, including specifically ordering that
    “[s]ervices to be provided shall include, but not be limited to:
    DHHS shall confirm the child’s immunizations are up to date,
    and if not, shall have them made current w/DHHS paying for
    the same if the parents and insurance are not able to pay for
    the same.”
    It is from these orders that Robert and Veronica appeal.
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
    Robert and Veronica assign that the juvenile court was with-
    out authority to order DHHS to immunize the children.
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    [1] An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on the
    record and reaches a conclusion independently of the juvenile
    court’s findings.2
    1
    In re Interest of Becka P. et al., 
    296 Neb. 365
    , 
    894 N.W.2d 247
    (2017).
    2
    In re Interest of Carmelo G., 
    296 Neb. 805
    , 
    896 N.W.2d 902
    (2017).
    - 101 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    298 Nebraska R eports
    IN RE INTEREST OF BECKA P. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    298 Neb. 98
    [2] On a question of law, an appellate court reaches a con-
    clusion independently of the court below.3
    ANALYSIS
    On appeal, Robert and Veronica argue that the juvenile
    court erred in ordering DHHS to have the children immunized,
    because it lacked the authority to do so. Robert and Veronica
    do not challenge the orders on constitutional or religious
    grounds, but instead base their argument on Neb. Rev. Stat.
    § 43-285(1) (Reissue 2016), which provides in relevant part:
    When the court awards a juvenile to the care of the
    Department of Health and Human Services, an association,
    or an individual in accordance with the Nebraska Juvenile
    Code, the juvenile shall, unless otherwise ordered, become
    a ward and be subject to the legal custody and care of the
    department, association, or individual to whose care he or
    she is committed. Any such association and the depart-
    ment shall have authority, by and with the assent of the
    court, to determine the care, placement, medical services,
    psychiatric services, training, and expenditures on behalf
    of each juvenile committed to it.
    Robert and Veronica contend that the court lacks the power
    to set its own conditions and, instead, can only “assent” to
    decisions made by DHHS. Because DHHS did not recommend
    that the children be immunized, and there is no evidence to
    show that DHHS is concerned about the children’s health or
    that the children will be attending public school, Robert and
    Veronica argue that the court acted outside its authority.
    Robert and Veronica do not cite to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-288
    (Reissue 2016), which provides:
    If the court’s order of disposition permits the juvenile
    to remain in his or her own home as provided by sec-
    tion 43-284 or 43-286, the court may, as a condition or
    conditions to the juvenile’s continuing to remain in his or
    her own home, or in cases under such sections when the
    3
    
    Id. - 102
    -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    298 Nebraska R eports
    IN RE INTEREST OF BECKA P. ET AL.
    Cite as 
    298 Neb. 98
    juvenile is placed or detained outside his or her home, as
    a condition of the court allowing the juvenile to return
    home, require the parent, guardian, or other custodian to:
    (1) Eliminate the specified conditions constituting or
    contributing to the problems which led to juvenile court
    action;
    (2) Provide adequate food, shelter, clothing, and medi-
    cal care and for other needs of the juvenile;
    (3) Give adequate supervision to the juvenile in the
    home;
    (4) Take proper steps to insure the juvenile’s regular
    school attendance;
    (5) Cease and desist from specified conduct and prac-
    tices which are injurious to the welfare of the juve-
    nile; and
    (6) Resume proper responsibility for the care and
    supervision of the juvenile.
    The terms and conditions imposed in any particular
    case shall relate to the acts or omissions of the juvenile,
    the parent, or other person responsible for the care of the
    juvenile which constituted or contributed to the problems
    which led to the juvenile court action in such case.
    At the time the juvenile court ordered that the children’s
    immunizations be “made current,” the children were placed
    in Robert and Veronica’s home. As such, the State argues that
    under § 43-288(2), the juvenile court was authorized to require
    DHHS to immunize the children.
    We agree. To hold otherwise would limit the powers of a
    juvenile court to order DHHS and parents to undertake actions
    for the betterment of juveniles and their families within the
    juvenile court system. As such, we find no error in the juvenile
    court’s orders.
    CONCLUSION
    We affirm the judgments below.
    A ffirmed.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: S-16-1131, S-16-1132, S-16-1133

Citation Numbers: 298 Neb. 98

Filed Date: 10/27/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/17/2017